Preamble

The. House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBER SWORN.

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Robert Arthur James Gascoyne Cecil, esquire, commonly called Viscount Cranborne, County of Dorset (Southern Division).

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

Rothesay Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

OPIUM (EXPORT).

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the figures showing the amount of opium exported by the Government of India for the period ended the last 12 months, and the total revenue received by the Government of India on that account?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The quantity of opium exported from India during the year ended 30th September, 1935, was 322 chests and the sale proceeds at the contract price of Rs.4,000 a chest was Rs.12,88,000.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much a chest contains?

Mr. BUTLER: The contents of a chest is 140 lbs.?

Mr. DAY: Is that an increase on the previous year?

Mr. BUTLER: Will the hon. Member put that question down?

Miss HORSBRUGH: Is not India working through the League of Nations as on other drug schemes, and has she not this year ratified a further Convention?

Mr. BUTLER: Yes.

QUETTA EARTHQUAKE (ROVER SCOUTS).

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what recognition has been given to the rover scouts, most of whom are of high social status and caste, who undertook the sole responsibility in Quetta of removing dead bodies from the ruins and burying them or cremating them during the summer, work which is usually considered unclean and only to be done by those of the lowest caste; and, if none has been given, will he bring their services and their moral courage to the notice of the proper authorities?

Mr. BUTLER: The work of the rover scouts was spoken of in terms of the highest appreciation in the reports on the earthquake published by the Government of India, and by the Home Member of the Governor-General's Council in the Legislative Assembly. My Noble Friend associates himself with these tributes and is causing a copy of my hon. Friend's question and this reply to be sent to the Government of India.

PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU.

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the repudiation by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru of allegations made against him in the Bengal Government's administration report for 1934–35; and whether he will ask the Bengal Government for an explanation?

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his


attention has been called to the charges made in the report of the Government of Bengal that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress leader, has used the moneys raised for the campaign again untouchability for the purpose of seditious propaganda; and whether, in view of the fact that Pandit Nehru has denied this charge, he will ask the Government of Bengal for a report of the circumstances on which this charge has been made?

Mr. BUTLER: My Noble Friend is asking for a report from the Government of Bengal.

NATIONAL CONGRESS JUBILEE (AMNESTY).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government will suggest to the Government of India that they should, as a friendly gesture to organised political opinion in India, mark the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Indian National Congress by granting an amnesty to political prisoners whose cases appear suitable for such action?

Mr. BUTLER: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply given to a similar question by the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on 9th December.

Mr. THURTLE: Are not the Government interested in creating a better atmosphere in India?

Mr. BUTLER: The Government are interested in creating a better atmosphere. This matter is in the discretion of the Viceroy.

PRISONERS (HEALTH).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will cause inquiries to be made concerning the health of Messrs. J. M. Adhikari and R. Adhikari, both interned at Bijapur under Section 4 of the Bombay (Special) Emergency Powers Act; also concerning the health of Amir Hyder Khan, at present in Madras penitentiary, and Mr. Muzaffer Ahmad, who was released after serving a sentence in the Meerut conspiracy and re-arrested under special enactments; and what steps has the Government taken to ensure that they receive adequate medical and dietetic treatment?

Mr. BUTLER: If the hon. Member will supply me with any information which he may have indicating that the persons in question are suffering in health by reason of the restrictions placed on them, I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. GALLACHER: Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman has no information?

Mr. BUTLER: I have information, but I have no information that they are suffering in health. If the hon. Member will give me any information I will look into the matter.

Mr. HERBERT G. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. Member any information about the condition of prisoners in Russian gaols?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does the Government periodically examine these people with a view to discovering whether they are affected in their health?

Mr. BUTLER: If the hon. Member will read the question he will see that it does not apply to these particular people. We have a limited amount of information about them. If the hon. Member will provide me with any information about their health, I will inquire.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE RAILWAYS.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state, for the guidance of British investors who have provided the funds for the construction and maintenance of Argentine railways, upon which they receive no return, whether the Road and Rail Co-ordination Bill has yet passed through the Argentine legislature and been put into operation?

The MINISTER for LEAGUE of NATIONS AFFAIRS (Mr. Anthony Eden): A bill providing for the co-ordination of transport in Argentina was passed by the Chamber of Deputies during the recent session of Congress and will come up before the Senate when Congress re-assembles.

Sir M. SUETER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will remind the Argentine Government's commercial counsellor now in London that the British-owned railways in Argentina are exempted from federal


and provincial taxation under the Mitré law; and will he represent that the taxation of the railways by the action of the Argentine Government in fixing the purchase rate of pesos at 15 to the £ and the selling rate at 17 may cease, and that the amount collected from the railways by this method be refunded to the railways prior to the ratification of a renewal of the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government have been carefully watching the development of the situation in regard to the British-owned railways in Argentina, and they have quite recently authorised His Majesty's Ambassador to invite the attention of the President of the Argentine Republic to the various difficulties of the companies, including those occasioned by the rate at which the companies are at present forced to remit their earnings.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL (SEA POLLUTION).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what progress has been made in the international negotiations to secure the universal adoption of measures for preventing the pollution of the seas by oil which still causes the death of thousands of sea birds and the pollution of our coasts?

Mr. EDEN: The Assembly of the League of Nations decided in September that the subject of the pollution of the sea by oil was one suitable for solution by an international convention and the Council accordingly instructed the Communications and Transit Organisation to complete the preparation of a draft convention on the subject for the consideration of Governments, and to report to the Council when the observations from the Governments had been received. In conformity with these instructions a Committee of Experts convened by the Communications and Transit Organisation met in October and prepared a report and a draft convention, which have been communicated to the Governments concerned for their observations.

Sir W. DAVISON: Meanwhile, as this may involve delay, would it not be possible for the British Government to do something to prevent the pumping out of waste oil within the three-mile limit?

Mr. EDEN: We have done a great deal, and we have taken the initiative, but this is a subject for international action, and we will press it forward as rapidly as we can.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of foreign policy being polluted by oil?

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Colonel GOODMAN: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the nature of the news bulletin broadcast in English from the Rome shortwave station for Canadian and American listeners; and, in view of the tendentious character of the information given, has he caused any representations to be made to the Italian Government?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information about a news bulletin of the nature referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am making inquiries.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made it, or will make it, clear to the French Government that the procedure of the League of Nations in connection with the Italian aggression will be followed in the case of aggression in Austria or across the Rhine, and that that procedure is not affected by other agreements such as the Locarno Treaty?

Mr. EDEN: The procedure of the League of Nations must in each particular case be decided by the League itself. As regards the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards their League obligations in the case of possible future acts of aggression in Europe, I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the terms of my right hon. Friend's note of 26th September to the French Ambassador to which I have nothing to add. This note was published in the Press on 30th September, and I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy of it.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Could not some of these documents, which have appeared in the Press and are of considerable consequence, be brought together in a white paper, so as to be handy for reference for Members of the House of Commons?

Mr. EDEN: Yes. I will gladly consider that.

Mr. DALTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a further statement regarding the proposals for which His Majesty's Government have made themselves responsible for a settlement of the war in Africa?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir; I have at present nothing to add to previous statements and to the White Paper which has been distributed to hon. Members. I would ask the hon. Member to await the full statement which will be made in the course of the Debate, which, I understand, is to take place shortly.

Mr. DALTON: Do the Government still accept responsibility for these shameful proposals?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Mr. DALTON: Subject to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I think the question I have put is in order, and I await an answer from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the question had been submitted to me as one to be put on the Paper, I should not have allowed the adjective which the hon. Member used.

Mr. COCKS: Is not that true of all supplementary questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry to say that it is true of some of them.

Mr. DALTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have now decided on what date they will carry out their treaty obligations under Article XVI of the Covenant of the League of Nations by prohibiting the supply of oil to Italy; and whether they have urged other Governments to take like action, and with what results?

Mr. EDEN: I have nothing to add to the statement made to the House on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during the Debate on the Address on 5th December.

Mr. DALTON: Since that statement have his Majesty's Government been entirely inactive in relation to foreign Governments in regard to an oil embargo?

Mr. EDEN: As the House knows, the application of sanctions by the League is governed not only by Article XVI but by resolutions which were adopted by the Assembly in 1921. On that basis the League has been working consistently.

Mr. DALTON: Have his Majesty's Government been active or inactive?

Mr. GARRO-JONES: In order to render effective such collective action as might be taken, have His Majesty's Government taken steps with nations which are not members of the League, in order to strengthen collective action outside the League?

Mr. EDEN: I doubt whether the hon. Member's question would assist collective action.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government still adhere to the declaration made by the Minister for League of Nations Affairs to Parliament on 23rd October that one of the indispensable conditions of any settlement of the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia was that the terms of any such settlement must be consistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country will read that answer with satisfaction?

Mr. EDEN: I hope the country will read all my answers with satisfaction.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the date and time at which the full text of the Franco-British peace proposals were presented to the Governments of Italy and Abyssinia by the British Ministers at Rome and Addis Ababa, respectively, and also upon what date and at what time the full text of these proposals were received by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: The text of the proposals was presented to the head of the Italian Government by His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome at 5.30 p.m. on 11th December. It was handed to the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs in Addis Ababa by His Majesty's Minister on the morning of 13th December. The proposals were communicated to the Secretary-General for


circulation to the Council of the League of Nations on the afternoon of 13th December.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why simultaneous presentation was not arranged at Rome and Addis Ababa, and why there should have been such delay in presenting the text of the proposals to the Secretary-General of the League?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Member will look at my answer, I do not think that there was any undue delay.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my supplementary question, why simultaneous presentation was not arranged in Rome and Addis Ababa?

Mr. EDEN: There was simultaneous despatch. It is impossible for His Majesty's Government to guarantee simultaneous delivery.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be quite frank with the House and say whether in fact the note was received in Addis Ababa two days after the note was received in Rome?

Mr. EDEN: I do not think the House will suspect me of not being frank. I have told the House that the time of the despatch to the two capitals was simultaneous.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Was it within the terms of the Government's policy that there should accompany these proposals a recommendation of the Foreign Secretary that the Empire of Abyssinia should on the grounds of statesmanship accept the terms?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not seem to relate to the question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has obtained any information showing to what extent the student riots in Egypt are due to Italian anti-British propaganda in that country?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. DALTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he

will make a statement on the latest developments in Egypt; and whether the High Commissioner has now been instructed to withdraw the advice which he recently tendered against the restoration of the Constitution of 1923?

Mr. EDEN: As the hon. Member is aware from reports in the press, the United Front in Egypt has communicated to Sir Miles Lampson a note ending with a request for the conclusion of the Treaty negotiated in 1930. The High Commissioner has communicated the contents of this note to His Majesty's Government, and the question is now being examined. His Majesty's Government still hold that the restoration of the 1923 Constitution is not in the best interests of the Egyptian people. As, however, a mistaken impression still existed in Egypt, in spite of the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House, that their advice on the subject amounted to a veto, they instructed His Majesty's High Commissioner in Cairo to dispel that impression. Sir M. Lampson has been successful in achieving this object.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the purpose of the visit of the Inspector-General of the Royal Air Force to Egypt, and his presentation to the King of Egypt by the British High Commissioner; is it proposed that he shall visit the Sudan; and whether he can state the total number of aerodromes and landing grounds with which the Sudan has been equipped, and the total establishment of the Royal Air Force in the Sudan?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Air Chief Marshal Sir Robert Brooke-Popham is temporarily in command of the Royal Air Force, Middle East, and his presentation to His Majesty the King of Egypt was in accordance with customary usage. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, the Sudan being in the area of the Middle East Command. As regards the last part of the question, it would not be in the public interest to supply the information desired.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH NEWS SERVICE).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign


Affairs what steps have been taken during the past year by the British Government to assist the introduction of a British news service into Brazil; and whether he is aware of the disadvantage to British interests in Brazil through no British news service being available to the Brazilian Press?

Mr. EDEN: No specific request for the assistance of His Majesty's Government on the lines suggested in the first part of the question has been received. As regards the second part, the answer is in the negative. If my hon. and gallant Friend will bring to my notice any specific case in which British interests in Brazil have suffered, I will be glad to consider the matter further.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Will my right hon. Friend consider the extension of the British news service to the South American republics, particularly Chile, the Argentine and Peru?

Mr. EDEN: That is rather a larger question, and I should like to see it on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAW MATERIALS (ACCESS).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the investigation carried out by His Majesty's Government with regard to the question of access to raw materials by countries not possessing them within their own territories has yet reached concrete results; and, if so, whether he will lay such results before the House in a White Paper?

Mr. EDEN: The investigation is not yet complete. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise at present.

Mr. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate a completion of these inquiries before the House adjourns next Friday?

Mr. EDEN: I do not think they will be completed before that date, but we are making progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Sir DOUGLAS THOMSON: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will, in any circumstances, accept proof now of pre-war earnings, with a view to an

alternative pension; and, if not, whether any alternative pensions have been awarded when earnings were not proved within the prescribed period?

Major GEORGE DAVIES (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): My hon. Friend has no general power to extend the prescribed period. The Royal Pension Warrant recognises no exceptions save for the rare cases, which occurred only in the early years after the War, in which proof of pre-war earnings could not have been established earlier for "some cause over which the pensioner had no control."

Sir D. THOMSON: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether all pensioners were advised of the limited time in which they had to reply?

Major DAVIES: Not without notice.

Mr. SIMMONDS: asked the Minister of Pensions the number, during 1935, of widows' pensions granted by him and of applications for such pensions which he has refused?

Major DAVIES: During the 11 months ended 30th November last pensions were awarded to 655 widows of officers and of men of other ranks, and 1,141 claims were rejected.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

LEVANT FAIR.

Major PROCTER: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Holland, and Poland are definitely participating in, and that Rumania, Austria, Denmark, Hungary, Greece, the United States of America, and Turkey are interesting themselves in various sections of, the forthcoming Levant Fair at Tel-Aviv, Palestine; and whether he can now give an assurance that British participation in this fair will be on such a scale as to ensure the advancement of British trade interests?

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am unable to confirm my hon. and gallant Friend's statement as to the countries which are participating or interesting themselves in the forthcoming Levant Fair at Tel-Aviv, but I am making inquiries. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer to the


reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) on 11th December.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. BURKE: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department on what principle space is allocated to firms desiring to exhibit at the British Industries Fair; whether he is aware that firms in the North of England complain that they cannot secure adequate accommodation as compared with firms in London and the South; and what action he proposes to take?

Captain WALLACE: Allotments of space are made by the Department with a view to meeting the particular requirements of individual firms and, at the same time, utilising available space to the best advantage. Preference is given as far as possible to firms who have exhibited the largest number of times. I am aware of only one instance of a firm in the North of England complaining that preferential treatment is given to London firms about which the hon. Member wrote to me a few days ago. I am satisfied that the allegations made in this case are not justified by the facts, and I addressed a full reply to the hon. Gentleman on the subject last Saturday.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Are the Government considering increasing the amount of space available for the exhibition, in view of the demand for more space?

Captain WALLACE: If we find that more people want space and we are able to secure it, we shall be glad to increase the space available.

Mr. BURKE: In view of the fact that firms in the North, and particularly in Lancashire, are making laudable efforts to extend their trade, will the hon. and gallant Member see that every encouragement is given to them?

Captain WALLACE: If the hon. Member will read the letter which I sent to him on Saturday he will see that we are dealing with the situation.

LEATHER (IMPORTS).

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his

attention has been drawn to the large increase of imports of leather from the Empire countries of Australia, Canada and India into the United Kingdom under the terms of the Ottawa Agreement free of duty; and whether it is proposed to continue the present arrangements after the termination of the present agreement in 1937?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am aware that imports from the countries referred to in the question of some classes of leather have increased in recent years, but I am unable to make any statement as to the position on the termination of the Ottawa Agreements.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the tanning industry there is discontent owing to this large increase of imports?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will send me details, I will take them into consideration.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Has not my right hon. Friend already had representations from the interests concerned?

REDUNDANT WORKS, SHIPS, ETC.

Mr. BATEY: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of schemes that have been submitted to his Department in keeping with the recent Budget provision for the elimination of redundant works, plant, machinery, or ships?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Applications for certificates under Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1935, have been submitted to the Board of Trade in respect of five schemes. Certificates have been granted in respect of two of them; the others are under consideration.

Mr. BATEY: In the schemes for which certificates have been granted, is there power to close the works for a long term of years?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will put down that question, I will try to get him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BACON INDUSTRY.

Mr. TURTON: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the pig population


of Yorkshire on 4th June, 1935; and how many bacon factories there are at present in Yorkshire?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The number of pigs on agricultural holdings of over one acre in Yorkshire on 4th June, 1935, was approximately 422,000. I am informed by the Bacon Development Board that the number of premises in Yorkshire in which bacon curing is being carried on, excluding the premises of curers who are not registered under the Bacon Marketing Scheme, is 51.

Mr. TURTON: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many members of the Bacon Development Board own or control bacon factories; how many factories are owned or controlled by these members of the board; and how many of these factories have an average throughput of more than 1,000 pigs per week and less than 250 pigs per week, respectively?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Bacon Development Board was set up in accordance with the recommendations of the Lane Fox Reorganisation Commission with equal representation of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board and three members nominated by the Government, including the chairman, Lord Portal. None of the Government representatives own or control any bacon factories. As to the remaining members, I understand that none of the four Pigs Board representatives own or control any factories, while the four Bacon Board representatives naturally are associated with bacon factories, though clearly I could not give the detailed information asked for.

Mr. TURTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider delegating the function of licensing to an impartial judicial tribunal instead of to a board a great part of whom have vested interests in the industry?

Mr. ELLIOT: If the hon. Member had done me the honour of listening to my reply, he would see that seven of the representatives, that is a clear majority, have no vested interests in the industry.

Mr. TURTON: Is there any parallel for a licensing tribunal having four representatives out of eleven who are interested in the industry?

Mr. ELLIOT: Surely three impartial members holding a balance between four members on either side is not unusual.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that on all these marketing boards there is always a majority who have vested interests in the matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member has not followed the discussion. We are talking of a Development Board not a Marketing Board.

Mr. TURTON: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that contracts for 30,000 pigs were obtained for the Sherburn factory on the assumption that a branch of the Sherburn factory would be permitted to open at Norton and that, by reason of the refusal of the Bacon Development Board to grant a licence to the proposed factory at Norton, it will not be possible to carry out these contracts; what is the present position of these contracts; and whether the producers will be at liberty to withdraw them?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of the application for a new factory in Yorkshire, but I have no knowledge of the conditions assumed by the Sherburn factory when inviting contracts. I could not express any opinion as to the ability of the contracting parties to carry cut contracts. The present position of these contracts is, I understand, that they have been registered by the board. I regret that I am unable to give any opinion whether in the circumstances mentioned the pig producers may withdraw their contracts.

Mr. TURTON: Is the Minister aware that the refusal of a licence to the Norton factory has caused grave concern among the pig producers of Yorkshire, and that it will mean the breakdown of the scheme unless something is done?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that the Development Board's action is being influenced by the holding up of the Government's decision with regard to future policy in relation to imports; and can he not expedite that decision, so as to give the Development Board a chance to get on with their policy?

Mr. ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend knows that that in its turn is being


delayed by the necessity for reaching agreement with foreign countries and I am sure he would not wish me to override the rights of foreign countries in this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does the Minister realise that this question is also of vital importance in North Lincolnshire?

Mr. TURTON: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the position, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment Motion at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the policy of the Government to encourage the starting of new industries in the distressed areas, he is aware that the Bacon Development Board is refusing to grant a licence for the erection of a bacon factory in Sunderland; and will he take the necessary steps to see that this new industry is not prevented from starting in county Durham?

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member will be aware that the Lane Fox Commission reported that there was an excess of bacon curing capacity in the United Kingdom and recommended the rationalisation of the industry through a Development Board. The Commission's recommendations were adopted by the Government; the Bacon Development Board was set up, with the approval of Parliament, with power to license premises for the production of bacon, and its investigations are now proceeding. Before refusing to grant an application for a licence, the board must give the applicant opportunity to make representations before them either orally or in writing; and an unsuccessful applicant has the right to appeal to arbitration. A safeguard for the public interest is also provided in the Committee of Investigation.

Mr. BATEY: Has the Bacon Development Board power to set aside the policy of the Government which is to start new industries in the distressed areas?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir; but it would be in accordance with the policy of the Government to ensure that such industries, if started, have a chance of succeeding.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand from that answer that the policy of the Government is not to start new industries in the distressed areas?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir; the hon. Member would be in error in making such a deduction from my reply.

Mr. BATEY: I wish to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment Motion on Friday, if I do not get any satisfaction to-morrow on the consideration of the Amendments to the Pigs Marketing Scheme.

TOBACCO GROWING.

Captain RAMSAY: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that experiments over a number of years have proved that excellent tobacco can be grown in this country, but that at present growers are hampered by restrictions, charges, and inspections; and whether, in order to encourage would-be growers, he will receive representations on the subject with a view to facilitating tobacco growing?

Mr. ELLIOT: The question of tobacco growing in this country was exhaustively considered in 1923 by a committee appointed by the Treasury. The committee, whose report was issued as a Command Paper (No. 1983) in that year, came to the conclusion that only a low-grade article would be grown generally in Great Britain. With regard to the regulations which growers of tobacco are required to observe, I may refer my hon. Friend to the reply to the question put by him on 25th October last.

Captain RAMSAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these restrictions were at the instigation of his Department or the Revenue Department? Will the right hon. Gentleman receive further representations on the subject?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am always willing to receive any further representations which the hon. and gallant Member wishes to put before me.

WARBLE FLY.

Mr. ROLAND ROBINSON: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in his consultations with the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State and with local authorities on the subject of the depredations of the warble fly?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the answer I gave on 9th December to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), which indicates the present position with regard to consultation with the Governments concerned. As regards local authorities,?5 of the counties in Great Britain have indicated readiness to enforce an Order requiring the treatment of warble-infested cattle periodically during the months of March to June in each year; 10 have expressed themselves as not in favour of an Order, while replies from eight counties are outstanding.

LAND DRAINAGE ACT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps, if any, he proposes to take to amend the hardships and difficulties that have been discovered in the working of the Land Drainage Act?

Mr. ELLIOT: I can hold out no hope of being able to introduce an amending Bill during the present Session, but I should be glad to consider any cases of hardship brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the rapid changes in countryside development and the slowness of the present periodic revision of the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain, steps can be taken forthwith to overcome the accumulated arrears; and how soon will the committee of inquiry make known its findings on this matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: I fully appreciate the importance of expediting the revision of Ordnance Survey maps, and I am hopeful that the Departmental Committee which is now sitting will be able to make proposals for placing revision on a satisfactory basis. I am informed that the committee is on the point of completing an interim report, and that this will be in my hands very shortly.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: In view of the considerable difficulty which arises owing to over-development in a great many areas not being properly marked on the maps now available, can the Department in the meantime expedite the re-survey of those areas where development has taken place?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think it would be better to have the Ordnance Survey developed along the lines of the report of the Committee which has gone very thoroughly into the matter.

Sir J. NALL: Is there any point in resurveying areas where no change has taken place, while these arrears have to be dealt with in other parts of the country?

Mr. ELLIOT: That is exactly what the Committee was set up to decide.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK.

CHEAP SUPPLY (CHILDREN).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many health authorities or charitable organisations organise the sale of cheap milk to children between the ages of one and five years; how many districts are being served; and the number of children supplied?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I have been asked to reply. At 31st December, 1934, 398 of the 421 local authorities responsible for maternity and child welfare arrangements in England and Wales supplied milk (fresh or dried) free or at less than cost price, in necessitous cases, to children under five years of age. In addition, 11 local authorities supplied milk at cost price. In many cases arrangements for the supply of milk to children of these ages is also made by charitable organisations, but my right hon. Friend is not aware of the actual number of such organisations. Statistics are not available which would enable my right hon. Friend to give the total number of children supplied with milk under these arrangements.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are the Ministry encouraging local authorities to investigate the possibilities of increasing milk consumption by this means; and in those areas where charitable organisations are operating, are the local health authorities likely to supersede the charitable organisations?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: On the first point the answer is, "Certainly." We have done all we can to foster the scheme. On the second point, I would like notice.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Can the hon. Gentleman say what it would cost the Exchequer to have a free distribution of milk?

Mr. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many education authorities have organised the distribution of cheap milk on non-school days; how many schools are involved; and how many children attend for a supply of milk?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Arrangements are made in some districts for the distribution of cheap milk on non-school days, but I have no information about the number of schools involved or the number of children who attend. In some 22 areas arrangements are made by the local education authority for the provision of free milk during school holidays, and in a few cases also during week-ends in term time.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the Board of Education are not interested in the question?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir, but as the hon. Member knows, the distribution of cheap milk is not a matter for organisation by local authorities but for individual schools, and it would therefore be impossible to obtain the information without circularising every school.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the question is of such importance that it would be desirable to circularise the education authorities with a view to extending this service?

Mr. STANLEY: I am sure we should all be glad to see the service extended, but I do not think that that result would be achieved merely by circularising the authorities.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Sir PERCY HURD: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the hindrance to progress in the milk policy of the Government arising from methods of administration under which the Ministry of Health supervise the production of certified and Grade A T.T. milk, while the Ministry of Agriculture promotes a scheme dealing with tuber-

culosis in dairy herds and the Milk Marketing Board has an accredited herd scheme on different lines; and whether steps can be taken to co-ordinate these services and so abate confusion and discouragement in the production of milk of approved quality?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am not aware that any hindrance is caused to the milk policy of the Government by reason of the facts referred to. There is full consultation between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture in matters affecting the quality of the milk supply, and it is their practice to ascertain the views of the Milk Marketing Board on all questions in which the board are concerned.

Sir P. HURD: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that most of the dairy farmers of this country are simple-minded folk and that this inter-departmental confusion hampers their co-operation in this better milk policy?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope my hon. Friend will put questions on details to the Ministers concerned.

Sir P. HURD: Unfortunately there are two or three Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

INLAND LETTER RATE.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to introduce the penny post?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): The possibility of a return to the penny post is constantly borne in mind by me. The matter is one which has to be considered in relation to the finances of the country as a whole, and I am at present unable to hold out any hope of an early restoration.

Mr. DUNCAN: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how much it would cost?

Major TRYON: The immediate loss to revenue on existing inland letters would, under present conditions, be £7,100,000 per year, but, allowing for an increase in traffic, based on pass experience, for an initial one ounce unit and for a halfpenny postcard there would be an estimated nett loss of £6,500,000.

Mr. LEACH: Are those figures based on the assumption that there would be no increase in the number of letters?

Major TRYON: No, Sir; the £6,500,000 is based on the assumption that there would be such an increase.

SURPLUS.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of the Post Office surplus at 31st March was retained by the Department?

Major TRYON: The proportion of the surplus at 31st March last due to the Post Office amounted to £1,126,817 (as shown in White Paper of 3rd December, 1935). This amount was duly paid over to the Post Office Fund by the Exchequer on 1st November last.

POSTAL FACILITIES, BURY.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Postmaster-General whether the posting facilities can be increased in the Borough of Bury by the addition of further letterboxes in the new housing districts?

Major TRYON: I am assured that the provision of postal facilities is keeping pace with housing development at Bury. But if my hon. Friend has any specific case in mind, I shall be happy to have inquiry made.

Mr. CHORLTON: If my right hon. Friend sees his way to give increased facilities, will he also give postage-stamp boxes?

Major TRYON: That would be a different matter which would also be considered.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that this last week-end there has been a tremendous increase in letters coming this way to Members?

MECHANISATION.

Mr. VIANT: asked the Postmaster-General the estimated saving effected in the various departments of the Post Office as a result of the introduction of improved machinery, the number of men and women displaced, and the effect upon recruitment?

Major TRYON: The informatoin desired by the hon. Member could only be obtained by an elaborate investigation,

in view of the number and variety of the changes which have taken place in recent years. It may perhaps suffice to say that, between 1922 when the post-War mechanisation began and October, 1935, the number of Post Office staff has risen by nearly 30,000.

WIRELESS LICENCES (REVENUE).

Mr. DAY: asked the Postmaster-General whether any new proposals are under consideration for the purpose of deriving extra revenue from wireless licences; and whether this has been considered in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Major TRYON: No proposals for the purpose indicated are under consideration by my Department?

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department consider the introduction of commercial broadcasting at times when broadcasting is not used for ordinary programmes?

Major TRYON: I think everybody in this House would desire that I should wait for the report of the Ullswater Committee.

CHRISTMAS STAFF (PAY).

Mr. VIANT: asked the Postmaster-General the rate per hour that is to be paid by his Department to the extra staff recruited for the Christmas period; whether an increased rate is to be paid for Christmas Day and Sunday work; whether there has been any increase in the rate paid during the past four years; and what is to be the average period of employment for this extra staff?

Major TRYON: The extra staff recruited for the Christmas period will in London be paid at the rate of 1s. 2d. an hour (1s. 1d. an hour for portering work); the rates in provincial towns will generally be somewhat lower and will, as in the past, be fixed according to local conditions. Attendance on Christmas Day and Sunday will be paid for at rate plus a half. The rates for the present year are 1d. an hour higher than those paid four years ago. The period of employment will vary according to the requirements of the particular office, and I regret that there is no available information on which to calculate the average period.

ARMS TRAFFIC (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: asked the Prime Minister when the Royal Commission on the private manufacture of arms is likely to report?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I understand that the Commission have not yet completed the hearing of evidence.

PEERS (TRIAL).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the introduction of legislation for the purpose of abolishing the right of a peer to be tried by his fellow peers on certain charges, thus making all citizens subject to the same processes of law?

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Prime Minister whether, and if so when, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to discontinue the procedure of the trial of peers on charges of felony in the Court of the High Steward, as exemplified in the recent case of Lord de Clifford?

Mr. LUNN: asked the Attorney-General whether he will consider taking steps to secure the uniform administration of the law as between peer and commoner?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have been asked to reply. I should prefer to postpone any statement as to new legislation until the matter can be further considered. I am not aware of any matter in which the administration of the law is not uniform as between peers and commoners charged with an offence, except that in cases of treason, murder, and felony, a, peer has the somewhat doubtful privilege of being tried by his peers.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that this archaic and costly class distinction is very unpopular?

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Attorney-General what is the estimated cost of the trial in the House of Lords of Lord de Clifford?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I understand that the charge to public funds will be in the neighbourhood of £700.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say from what fund that will be taken?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Not from the county.

Mr. DAY: On what Vote will it be taken?

ROYAL PARKS (GIFTS).

Mr. DUGGAN: asked the First Commissioner of Works what gifts have been made to the Royal Parks during the past year?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I acknowledge with sincere gratitude the gifts during 1935 of new entrance gates to Queen Mary's Gardens from Mr. Goetze; of a sculptured figure for the begonia garden from Sir William Reid Dick, R.A.; of scarce varieties of duck and geese from Mr. A. Ezra; some thousands of bulbs from Messrs. Bath, Ltd., Mr. Cranfield, and the Bermuda Department of Agriculture; of roses from Mr. S. Burgess and rhododendrons from Mr. Lionel Rothschild.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MINERS' WELFARE CENTRES (EMPLOYES, INSURANCE).

Mr. LUNN: asked the Minister of Labour whether the draft regulation submitted by the Unemployment Assistance Board, which provides for pit-head bath attendants to come into unemployment insurance, will also apply to caretakers of miners' welfare institutes?

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Minister of Labour whether the draft regulations which provide for pit-head bath attendants to come into unemployment insurance will also apply to other persons employed at miners' welfare centres?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): No, Sir. The question of bringing other persons employed at miners' welfare centres within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme is at present under consideration. The duties of such persons are similar to those of persons employed in a variety of other undertakings, and the necessary inquiries have not yet been completed.

JUVENILES (INSTRUCTION).

Mr. TOUCHE: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement with regard to the progress made in the formation of courses of instruction and training for juvenile unemployed persons and the number of such persons at present receiving instruction?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: During the week ended 25th September, 1934, there was an average attendance of 11,439 boys and 3,738 girls, at 112 junior instruction centres and classes. The total number of individuals who attended during the week was 18,058. During the week ended 27th November, 1935, the latest date for which statistics are available, the average attendance was 19,725 boys and 10,120 girls at 204 junior instruction centres and classes. The total number of individuals who attended during the week was 36,596, an increase of over 100 per cent. In addition, new centres or extensions of existing centres, with a total accommodation for about 12,000 juveniles, have been approved and will be opened as soon as possible. The latest figures in respect of other authorised courses of instruction relate to the month ended 20th November, 1935, during which the average attendance was 761 boys and 720 girls.

ALLOWANCE REDUCED.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of William Hughes, of Seaham Harbour, whose unemployment allowance has been reduced by 3s. 6d. per week on the ground that he has a son living in the neighbourhood who is assumed to be contributing to his parents' income; whether he is aware that the said son does not, and will not, make any contribution; and whether the responsible officer will be instructed not to reduce the allowance on an assumption which has no foundation?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am informed that this case was considered by a fully constituted appeal tribunal before which the applicant appeared in person and that the tribunal unanimously confirmed the determination. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, this decision is final.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, in fact, this reduction, on the assumption that there was such a contribution as is mentioned in the question, is not a distinct violation of the standstill agreement?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The hon. Member has asked me a question about a specific case, and I have told him that it has already been considered by the appeal tribunal, that their decision has been given, and that the Minister has no power to interfere. The machinery for the use of the appeal tribunal is as much a part of the standstill legislation as any other part of it.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the appeal tribunal is ignoring the Statute, will the hon. and gallant Member not intervene?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The appeal tribunal is part of the Statute.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Under what Section of the Act can the tribunal give a decision of this kind, when the man has to live in the home and this single man is living outside his home? Therefore, they are breaking the Act in reducing this man's allowance by 3s. 6d.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I have not the Act in my hand, so I cannot quote the Section, but part of the standstill Act relates to the use of the appeal tribunal to hear cases which are referred to it. This is a particular case which has been referred to it in accordance with the legal requirement, and the appeal tribunal has heard the case.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. MONTAGUE: asked the Minister of Labour the date on which the Transitional Payments Regulations and the National Economy (No. 2) Order were issued; and the number of persons receiving transitional payments who, as a result of the issue of these regulations and order, were during the first 12 months transferred to public assistance authorities and thus became subject to the Poor Law means test as provided for in these orders?

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, and the Unemployment Insurance (Transitional Payments) Regulations, 1931, were made


on 7th and 16th October, 1931, respectively. I would point out, however, that the hon. Member is in error in thinking that these persons were transferred to public assistance authorities. On the contrary they were dealt with, as previously, at the local offices of the Ministry of Labour, and it was specially provided in paragraph 3 of the regulations that they should not be required to attend at a Poor Law institution.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the Minister agree, then, that the unemployed were thrown upon the destitution test by the National Government?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Not at all. The particular test to which these people were submitted is well known, and I have already given the date upon which the particular legislation concerned was introduced.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that when these orders were issued the means test came into operation?

COAL ALLOWANCE.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to grant public assistance committees power to give supplementary relief in the form of a coal allowance during the winter months to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance under the standstill arrangements?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Local authorities are debarred by the Unemployment Act, 1934, from granting outdoor relief to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance allowances. As was pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour in answer to a question on 5th December last, the Unemployment Assistance Board have power to determine and, where necessary, to vary allowances on the actual need of each individual case, and in these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not think legislation to give the power suggested is necessary.

Mr. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many instances the unemployed are worse off this winter than they were last winter, and is not the present position a violation of the promise given when the standstill arrangements were agreed to by this House?

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Cannot these people get coals through the "pots and pans" clause in the Unemployment Assistance Board's Regulations?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: In many areas men on transitional payment in the old days might at Christmas time get an extra allowance for special need. Since they were transferred to the Board, the Board still has power to deal with cases of special need.

Mr. SMITH: Does the hon. Gentleman want the House to believe that the Unemployment Assistance Board has discretionary power to grant coal allowances during the winter months?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Certainly, in cases of special need, where such allowance was made.

Oral Answers to Questions — NECESSITOUS CHILDREN (FOOTW EAR).

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to enable local authorities to levy a rate for the provision of footwear for necessitous children?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, Sir. There is no necessity for such legislation. Public assistance authorities already have power to provide adequate relief in all cases of need, and relief may be in money or in kind as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances.

Miss WILKINSON: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be wiser to give this help quite apart from the Poor Law, in view of the fact that in so very few cases this kind of assistance is given and the health of the children suffers accordingly?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Ample powers are in existence and are extensively used.

Mr. MAXTON: Have education committees power to see that boots are issued to these children?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC AIR SERVICE.

Mr. R. ROBINSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether


he is conducting any negotiations with regard to an Atlantic air-mail service; and, if so, with whom?

Sir P. SASSOON: When reviewing the whole field of the development of Empire air services last year, His Majesty's Government decided, after full consideration of all relevant factors, to entrust the operation of the North Atlantic service when instituted to Imperial Airways, in so far as the United Kingdom is concerned—this company having done much preparatory work on the problems of trans-Atlantic operation. Preliminary negotiations were accordingly opened with the company, and a mission from this country has recently visited Canada and the United States to participate in discussions designed to facilitate co-operation between the United States, Canada, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom.

Mr. ROBINSON: Can my right hon. Friend say how soon he expects operations to commence on this service?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think I could say definitely now.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does this development policy involve any revision of subsidy?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is a completely new arrangement.

Mr. MONTAGUE: In that case will the Under-Secretary consider the question of Government representation on the Imperial Airways Board?

Sir P. SASSOON: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (JEWISH LABOUR).

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the economic expansion now taking place in Palestine and the need for further labour, the labour schedule for Jewish immigration will be increased?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): As I informed the hon. Member on nth December, proposals for the schedule for the current half-year are now under consideration by the High Commissioner for Palestine. In determining the quota, the High Commissioner will be guided by all the relevant facts.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Zionist Congress deploring the small share of employment on public and municipal works which has fallen to the Jewish population in Palestine, and urging His Majesty's Government in Palestine, in determining future labour schedules, to make due provision under this head so as to enable the Jewish population, by means of an adequate supply of immigrant labour, to benefit from Government expenditure on public works; and what steps have been taken to carry out this request?

Mr. THOMAS: I have seen the resolution to which the hon. Member refers and a copy has been forwarded to the High Commissioner for Palestine. Employment on public and municipal works in Palestine has at all times been available to Jews on the same conditions as to non-Jews, and in determining labour schedules careful consideration has always been given to Jewish claims for a fair proportion of employment on public works.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

TANKER "LA CRESCENT."

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the findings by the Wreck Commissioner in the case of the tanker "La Crescenta," he proposes to take any further action against the owners of that vessel?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade has been served with notice of appeal to the High Court of Justice by the owners of the "La Crescenta" and other persons affected by the findings of the Wreck Commissioner. The whole matter, therefore, is sub judice.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will not the right hon. Gentleman deal with this as a special question, having regard to the strictures of Lord Merrivale, the Wreck Commissioner?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: While the matter is sub judice I must be very correct.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will not the right hon. Gentleman go a little further? If there is an appeal, I agree that he can-


not take immediate action, but if the Wreck Commissioner is upheld in his decision, will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking further action against the owners of "La Crescents"?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a hypothetical question. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Board will not lose sight of the matter.

Mr. EDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the appeal is likely to be heard?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot say that yet.

Mr. THORNE: Who will defend the Commissioner in the appeal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman had better put any question on that subject on the Paper.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS.

Mr. LOGAN: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the findings of the Wreck Commissioner, whether he intends, at an early date, to introduce legislation to revise the Merchant Shipping Acts?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I propose to make a full statement on this subject tomorrow. Meantime, I would refer to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones) on 10th December.

COAL INDUSTRY (BOYS, EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys under 16 years of age employed in the coal-mining industry in 1930, and at the latest date on which figures are available, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): In December, 1930, the number of boys under 16 years of age employed in the coal-mining industry in Great Britain was 36,545 and in December, 1934, 28,794. The corresponding figures for Lancashire and Cheshire were 2,059 and 1,481, respectively.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case tried at the Leeds police court on 22nd November, when a man was charged with forging his wife's signature on two cheques for £120 and £140 respectively, and the charge was withdrawn owing to the view taken by the magistrate, and acquiesced in by the prosecuting solicitor, that the man could not be charged with forging or cashing cheques on his wife's account unless there was evidence that he had either deserted her or was contemplating desertion; and will he introduce legislation to prevent the intention of the Married Women's Property Act being frustrated in this manner?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have seen newspaper reports from which it appears that the magistrate, though he did not himself feel able to commit the defendant for trial, suggested that application might be made to a Judge of the High Court for leave to prefer a bill of indictment. It would accordingly be premature to consider at this stage whether there is a case for amending legislation.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether an appeal to the High Court has, in fact, been made, and whether the cost of such an appeal would not be prohibitive to the complainant?

Mr. LLOYD: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

Miss WILKINSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the position would have been the same if the wife had forged her husband's cheque?

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (REDISTRIBUTION).

Sir REGINALD BLAIR: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the difficulties caused by the number of electors in certain constituencies; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Redistribution Bill during the present Parliament?

Mr. LLOYD: The programme for the present Session, as my hon. Friend knows, has already been announced and my right hon. Friend is not able to anticipate the work of future Sessions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SPEED LIMIT (POLICE ACTION).

Mr. SIMMONDS: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that police cars are trapping motorists after midnight on wide deserted roads; and whether, in the public interest, he will recommend the cessation of this practice?

Mr. LLOYD: When the Road Traffic Act, 1934, was passing through Parliament, the question of the hours during which the speed limit should be in operation was fully discussed, and Parliament decided that it should operate throughout the night as well as during the day time. It is the duty of the police to enforce the law, and my right hon. Friend would not feel justified in advising them to refrain from taking action if offences are committed.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not a fact that the success of this legislation depends upon the co-operation of the motoring public, and in these circumstances does not my hon. Friend feel that this is rather an untimely act, tending to prejudice the co-operation of motorists?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend is bound by the terms of the Statute.

PAPER MILL ACCIDENT (KEMSLEY, KENT).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information in connection with the death of Edward James Sharp, who fell into a coal shute at a paper mill at Kemsley, Kent, and was carried with the pulverised fuel down the feed-pipe to the furnaces; and whether the shute was properly protected and the safety regulations observed?

Mr. LLOYD: I have received a report on this very sad accident. It appears that it arose from overkeenness on the part of the deceased which led him to take an unnecessary risk. He climbed over the guard rails protecting the shute, having undertaken, without instructions and by an unauthorised method, to attempt to remove a piece of piping which had fallen

down the shute and was causing an obstruction. The shute was, I am advised, adequately protected and no breach of the Factory Acts or Regulations appears to have been involved.

Mr. MAITLAND: As this matter concerns a constituent of mine, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the proprietors of this paper mill are exceedingly concerned at this accident, and that they have the very highest reputation for the consideration they show to their employés?

Mr. BELLENGER: Has this machinery been inspected by an inspector of the Home Office?

Mr. LLOYD: Accidents of this kind are reportable under the terms of the Factory Act.

Mr. BELLENGER: But has it been inspected?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider introducing legislation to prevent a workman who shows excessive zeal thereby exempting his employer from payment of compensation?

BREACH OF RECOGNISANCES (MR. G. G. HADDON).

Mr. MESSER: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the early release from prison of Mr. Guy Gordon Haddon, who was charged at the Old Bailey on 17th January with breach of recognisances, and whose time would have expired on 17th November but for the technical error of his application for leave to appeal being late?

Mr. LLOYD: This prisoner applied in January for leave to appeal against sentence, and this application, which was made within the time allowed by the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, was duly considered by the Court and refused. About four months later he applied for leave to appeal against his original conviction and for an extension of the time within which such application is required to be made; these applications were also considered by the Court and refused. The Act provides that the period during which a person is treated as an appellant pending the determination of his appeal shall not count as part of his sentence unless the Court so directs. The Court gave no such direction on either occasion, and my right hon. Friend is not aware of any


ground on which he would be justified in advising any remission of this prisoner's sentence so as to allow of his release earlier than in the ordinary course.

Mr. MESSER: Am I to understand from the answer that there was no technical error?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 100.

Division No. 13.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lloyd, G. W.


Albery, I. J.
Duggan, H. J.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Assheton, R.
Eales, J. F.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Eckersley, P. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Elliston, G. S.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Elmley, Viscount
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir I.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Maitland, A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Entwistle, C. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Bernays, R. H.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Blair, Sir R.
Fleming, E. L.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Blaker, Sir R.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Blindell, J.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gluckstein, L. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Munro, P. M.


Bull, B. B.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nall, Sir J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.


Butler, R. A.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Butt, Sir A.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cary, R. A.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Patrick, C. M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hannah, I. C.
Peat, C. U.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Hannon, P. J. H.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harvey, G.
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pilkington, R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Porritt, R. W.


Channon, H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Pownall, Sir A. Assheton


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Procter, Major H. A.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Clarke, F. E.
Holdsworth, H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Clarry, R. G.
Holmes, J. S.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cochrane, Comdr. Hon. A. D.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reid, D. D. (Down)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Remer, J. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hunter, T.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jackson, Sir H.
Rowlands, G.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cross, R. H.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Crossley, A. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Culverwell, C. T.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Salmon, Sir I.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Latham, Sir P.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


De Chair, S. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


De la Bère, R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sandys, E. D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Levy, T.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Denville, Alfred
Lewis, O.
Savery, Servington


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Scott, Lord William


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)




Simmonds, O. E.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Smithers, Sir W.
Tate, Mavis C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wise, A. R.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Touche, G. C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.



Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Turton, R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wakefield, W. W.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
and Major George Davies.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Rowson, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Salter, Dr. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Sanders, W. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, G. D.
Sexton, T. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, J.
Holland, A.
Short, A.


Bellenger, F.
Hopkin, D.
Silverman, S. S.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brcad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Brooke, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Burke, W. A.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Charleton, H. C.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Chater, D.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Cocks, F. S.
McGhee, H. G.
Vlant, S. P.


Daggar, G.
McLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Dalton, H.
Maclean, N.
Walker, J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Marklew, E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Day, H.
Marshall, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Dobbie, W.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Ede, J. C.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Montague, F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Parker, H. J. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Potts, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MEMORIAL TO ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET EARL JELLICOE.

Resolution reported,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Admiral of the Fleet Earl Jellicoe as an expression of the admiration of this House for his illustrious naval career and its gratitude for his devoted services to the State, and to assure His Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (EXTENSION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.58 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
A full Debate on this matter took place last Thursday, at the end of which the Committee gave approval without a Division to the Financial Resolution. I suggest to hon. Members, therefore, that a brief explanation of this Bill may be all that is necessary to-day. I hope that hon. Members who were not present on the last occasion will not think it is any discourtesy on my part that I do not go into this matter at great length. I shall be happy to answer any material question as to the proposals contained in the Bill.
As I have stated, the proposals arise out of the postponement of the second appointed day referred to in the Unemployment Act, 1934. Briefly, they continue the arrangement that was made under the Unemployment (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935, whereby grants were made from 1st March, 1935, to 30th September, 1935, for the purpose of placing the authorities concerned as nearly as might be in the financial position in which they would have been, had the second appointed day not been postponed. In these circumstances, it is pro-

posed that the grants shall be continued for a further period from 1st October, 1935, to 31st March, 1936, or to the date appointed as the second appointed day, whichever be the earlier.
The method of determining the grants will be the same as that provided in the Act of 1935. The annual rate of grant is estimated to be approximately £4,000,000 for England and Wales and about £1,625,000 for Scotland. Under the No. 2 Act, payments of grant have been made on provisional figures obtained from the local authorities for the period of seven months from 1st March to 30th September this year. I have now asked for certified figures to be provided. In the result, the sum has proved favourable for nearly all the local authorities in the country. In the last Debate an hon. Gentleman suggested that on that account there was something wrong with the basis of the fund. I wonder what he would have said if the result had gone the other way.
The basis for calculating grants laid down in the Act will clearly commend itself to the general sense of the House because, on the whole, it has fulfilled the Government's intention that postponement of the second appointed day should not injuriously affect the local authorities. As a matter of fact, the great majority of them will be better off—by a sum of £425,000. There are a few authorities who have lost by this transaction. No county councils have lost, but a few county boroughs lose comparatively small sums and I have already given an undertaking on the discussion of the Financial Resolution, that I am prepared to take steps in those few cases. I therefore ask the House to give us the Bill as soon as possible in order that we may make the necessary payments to the local authorities. I conclude by saying that on the whole the local authorities have done quite well under these arrangements and that the various Associations have expressed themselves as satisfied with them. I claim that, taking the great majority of the local authorities, the effect of the proposals of the Bill is fully to implement the Government's intention that the postponement of the second appointed day should not injuriously affect the local authorities of the country.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The House will remember that when the stand-still arrangement was reached we were promised—it was as near a promise as anything that it is possible for any Minister to give—that the delay would be a question of only a few weeks, or at most a few months. It is now 10 months since that stand-still arrangement was arrived at. The present Government seem to have no greater knowledge of the ending of the stand-still arrangement than had the Government which they have replaced. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is a provision in the Bill to carry on for a further period beyond that to which they originally wished to carry on. The stand-still arrangement therefore, might be indefinitely postponed. No information has been supplied to the House, nor in replies to letters and deputations that have visited Ministers from various local authorities, as to when the new regulations are likely to be submitted to the House. Consequently we are justified in taking it for granted that Ministers themselves are not aware of the date upon which the regulations are likely to be ready for discussion.
Whatever unction the Minister of Health may take to his soul with regard to the nature of these proposals, there are numbers of authorities who are not as satisfied as the right hon. Gentleman would like the House to believe. He has only to consult his colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to discover that in Scotland at least there are quite a few authorities who are not satisfied, including the authority of the very area which the Secretary for Scotland represents in this House. The City of Glasgow, the second largest city in the Kingdom, has sent innumerable deputations to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Minister of Labour, and it sent deputations to the late Minister of Health, and I am certain that the present Minister of Health has had his share of the deputations that have come to London not merely from Scotland but from various parts of England, objecting to the methods by which this Government and the previous Government have made their allocation of grants to the local authorities. It is true that in this Bill there is a date fixed, but it is fixed by a phrase which gives the Government power of

extension. Consequently we are correct in assuming that, should certain circumstances arise, the Government can extend the provision in the Bill for an indefinite period.
I suggest to the Minister that it is about time the Government, finished all this shilly-shallying with the unemployed and the local authorities of the country. When the Unemployment Act was being discussed in the House we were assured that the appointed days would cause no inconvenience whatever, that they would be fixed in such a way that the Government would be able to carry on from the dates appointed. Yet there we are in a new Parliament still wondering when the second appointed day is to be fixed, still wondering when Ministers are going to make up their minds, and still wondering when the Unemployment Assistance Board is going to bring forward its new regulations. The people in the country who have to depend on relief are still unaware to what particular body they have to apply, which body is responsible for providing them with money week by week. It is no wonder that the people are asking themselves what sort of Government we have, what sort of individuals compose the Cabinet that rules the nation. Unemployment has broken several Ministers of Labour. I do not know whether it is likely to break the present Minister. It broke the last Minister of Health because of the anxiety it caused him and the large number of deputations that waited upon him and the manner in which they quoted against him speech after speech that he had made in this House and outside, as well as replies made by him to deputations.
I do not know whether the present Minister of Health is going to apply to his task the same diligent methods as he applied to the Post Office, over which he exercised a very efficient control. If he does so, very few of us will have reason to grumble, but when he acts in this way from the very beginning I have my doubts, not of his willingness, but of his ability to carry on properly through the maze of unemployment legislation. I suppose that eventually we shall find ourselves back at the beginning again, and several members of the Assistance Board resigning because the regulations cannot be made applicable to the unemployed under transitional payments. Scotland is to get £1,600,000 and


England £4,000,000. The Secretary of State for Scotland has met a number of deputations from Scotland which demanded that larger sums be allocated to Scotland. I should weary the House if I were to quote the figures; they have been submitted to the Government time and time again. Glasgow, a town of larger population than Birmingham, is being asked to contribute more to the Unemployment Assistance Board than Birmingham, but London, with eight times the population of Glasgow, is to pay only £250,000 as against Glasgow's £400,000.
The thing becomes absurd when one goes into all the figures, and realises that the Government, in the speeches of its spokesmen during the passing of the Unemployment Act, told the House and the country that they were going to make the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed a national concern, that the nation was to bear the cost. Yet when we come finally to the figures we find that the most distressed areas in the country, those hardest hit by unemployment, have to bear more than their share of the burden, that after having borne that burden five, six and even 10 years in some cases, they are being asked to-day to find a larger proportion of the money than are districts which have been least hit by unemployment. We cannot accept lightly the statement made by the Minister of Health this afternoon, that the Government are taking over nationally the maintenance of the unemployed, when he still asks that heavy contributions should be made by the most hardly hit areas.
I have a host of figures here, but I should only weary the House in quoting them. The previous Minister of Health and the Secretary for Scotland have heard our case time and time again. We have met the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health and the Secretary for Scotland, and on all occasions the effect of the answer to us has been, "Nothing more can be done. Wait until we have fixed the second appointed day and then everything will be well." Now we have the Measure before us, putting off the second appointed day once more for an indefinite period. A fixed date is in the Bill right enough, but the Government always insert a safe-

guard, a funk-hole. If an earlier day can be managed the Government will take that day. That is in the Bill. It was also in the last Bill. The earlier day did not arrive, the later day did not arrive, and a new Bill is now before us to carry the date further on and, if possible, make it indefinite.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he has any information from the Unemployment Assistance Board as to the possibility of the regulations being placed before the House at an early date. The unemployed want to know. They are in an anomalous position. They do not realise their situation. They are between public assistance relief and transitional benefit, and they cannot appreciate to which body they must apply when they want to appeal or when circumstances within their homes demand that they should seek an increase in the scale that they are being paid. As between the Ministry of Labour, the Unemployment Assistance Board, the Unemployment Statutory Committee under Part I of the Unemployment Act, and the public authority which looks after public assistance in the locality, those who are unemployed and have gone out of standard benefit do not know where they stand as regards their relief and the payments made to them.
The Government at the last Election brought forward a report from the Statutory Committee to the effect that, as the fund had a surplus, it was possible to give to the children of the unemployed 1s. extra per child, and the Unemployment Assistance Board some weeks later made practically the same statement. What is the situation to-day? Those who are on unemployment assistance are supposed to have 1s. extra per child, but, in the determinations that are being made locally, they are being told, "Yes, you are getting an increase of 1s. per head per child, but another member of your family is already receiving so much, and consequently, as you are at present receiving the limit of the scale, we cannot give you 1s. per head per child and still carry on the same payments. We will give you the 1s., and, if you have 2s., we shall deduct 2s. from a member of your family; if you have 4s., we shall deduct 4s. from a member of your family." They give the money to the child with one hand and take it away with the other. Surely,


this is a most preposterous method of allocating transitional payments.
I have seen determination papers, and have sent them to the Minister of Labour, showing that, where a man with two children is supposed to get 2s. more, the new determination tells him, "We are going to give the children 1s. each, but we are going to assess you—the man, the applicant, the claimant—upon your unemployment benefit, and we find that we can transfer the 2s. from you to the children and bring the whole matter out square. Therefore, we are reducing you by 2s., but are giving 1s. to each of the children." It is the most farcical proceeding that has taken place under any Department. This is not merely a Scottish case. I will give hon. Members opposite the credit for being interested in the unemployed in their areas, and there is no Member in this House that cannot find scores of these cases if he goes down to his constituency and makes it known that he wants to hear from any of his constituents—not necessarily unemployed—who wish to see him on any grievances about which they have to complain. If he does that, he will find scores of cases similar to the ones I have just quoted.
I submit to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for Scotland that it is high time they looked into these matters and regulated them in a different way. If an increase is to be given, for heaven's sake let it be an increase. If you are not going to give an increase, do not juggle with figures, do not tell the unemployed man that he is going to have something and at the same time take it away again, and make him wonder whether he is being made a laughing-stock by a Government that ought to know better. While we still hold the same views as we did in regard to the Money Resolution, we have no desire to block the Bill. Since the Government find that they cannot fix the second appointed day at the present time, we are prepared to carry it on a little longer, but for goodness' sake do not let them play with the House much longer, do not let them play with the unemployed much longer. As I pointed out at this Box in the last Parliament 10 months ago, although the Government of that day might consider that the Indian question, which they were then discussing, was the all-important question before the House, the

question of unemployment was one which they would have to settle sooner or later, and one which might bring them down. We have found already that a Minister of Labour has had to go elsewhere because of the outcry that was made in the early part of this year against the regulations for which, unfortunately for himself, he was responsible for bringing before the House and which he had to defend here.
I submit to the Government that they had better make up their minds that the Unemployment Assistance Board shall bring forward the regulations at a very early date, so that they may not have to come forward again with another temporary Bill of this character to extend the period once more. Otherwise, we shall wonder what sort of Government it is that we have, so soon after the Election, which carries on its governing of the country by temporary Measures, extending them from six months to six months. People will begin to wonder whether they are being governed on the hire-purchase system, and will think that, if they are, the sooner they get rid of the hire-purchase Government the better.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I was glad to observe from the closing sentences of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), that, although he and his friends are critical of this Bill, they do not purpose to carry their objections to the length of voting against it. To that extent I congratulate them on their wisdom, for, however much they may dislike the Bill, it is a very necessary Bill, and if by any chance they were successful in preventing it from passing, they would upset the finances of the whole of the municipal authorities in this country. The hon. Gentleman rather questioned the earlier statement of the Minister that the local authorities were satisfied with the proposals embodied in the Bill. I am glad to be able to assure the House, on the authority of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which organisation I happen to be a vice-president, that in the main the proposals embodied in the Bill are satisfactory, and satisfactory to the vast majority of the local authorities.

Mr. MACLEAN: It will be just as well to get this matter cleared up. Like other Members in all parts of the House, I have, during the last 10 months at any rate, been constantly invited to attend


conferences held here in London to hear the case put before us by local authorities, and I would like to know if the hon. Member has the authority of Liverpool, for example, for the statement that he is now making to the House?

Mr. MAITLAND: If the hon. Member had waited until I had finished my speech, he would have found that I was going to refer specifically to Liverpool, but, since he doubts the statement I have made, perhaps I may be permitted to read an extract from a letter which I have received this morning from the Secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations. He writes:
I ought, however, to state that, although this arrangement is satisfactory to the large majority of county boroughs, and, I believe, also county councils, there are some county boroughs who have suffered a loss.
That statement is most explicit. The arrangement is satisfactory to the large majority of county boroughs, and, as he believes, also the county councils. I wanted, however, and here I join at once with the hon. Gentleman, to join in a plea for those authorities who are not satisfied with this Measure, and the main purpose of my rising is to make that appeal to the Minister. I should also like to say that I was very glad to observe that, when the Money Resolution was before the House, the Minister gave an undertaking that certain concessions would be made to some authorities. I want to thank him for that undertaking, and to say that the Association of Municipal Corporations also thank him for it. I would add that those authorities who are satisfied with the arrangement are very anxious that those who are not covered by it should receive the consideration which the Minister has promised.
There is another point that I desire to make, and here again I would say that, although the hon. Member for Govan has complained about the delay in fixing the appointed day, it is a fact that, although the appointed day was postponed, the local authorities have received about £400,000 more than they would have received if the appointed day had not been postponed. The local authorities, therefore, as such, have no reason to complain on financial grounds. They are, however, anxious, notwithstanding the fact that there has been some financial gain to them by the postponement of the

appointed day, that the appointed day should be fixed as early as possible, and I would ask the Minister if he will bear in mind that request. We all know that he has certain difficulties in his way, and we appreciate that there are occasions when time is an important factor in the solving of difficulties, but in my judgment an extension of time would not help in solving the difficulties in this case, but would rather serve to exaggerate and increase them. Therefore I hope that the Minister and the Government, even with the difficulties that they have, will, as soon as it is convenient and practicable for them to do so, fix the second appointed day, so that there will be no further occasion to come to the House with these temporary Measures, which at all times are distasteful to the House, because the House, as I understand it, does not like to deal piecemeal with legislation. On these grounds I feel sure that the Minister will give consideration to the appeal which I have made.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: It is rather refreshing to hear a view of ours endorsed by a supporter of the Government. During the last Parliament, practically every Member on the Government side had something critical to say, and I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that, whether the municipal corporations of this country are or are not satisfied with the financial arrangements of the Bill, that does not meet our main point against it. Not only does the Bill foreshadow a postponement of the second appointed day until the 31st March next, but the White Paper dealing with the Financial Resolution stated that there was the possibility of a still further extension of these financial provisions. We complain about the delay in fixing the second appointed day. What has caused that delay? It was brought about by the muddle of the late Minister of Labour when he first introduced the Regulations.
There is one class of person about whose position very little has been said recently, and that is the unemployed agricultural labourer. If the second appointed day had been brought in, those unemployed in agriculture would have received the benefit of the Regulations, bad as they are. The treatment meted out to the unemployed agricultural labourer in some districts is far below that meted out to those who are outside


the provisions of the Regulations in our larger cities. The Prime Minister last week stated that unemployment insurance for agricultural labourers is likely to be brought in to operate from next winter. What is to happen to them in the meantime? In some districts they are treated shamefully and, if this second appointed day had been brought in, they would have been entitled to the benefit of the Regulations, even though they are not as good as we believe that they ought to be.
The present position cannot be taken as entirely satisfactory. The Minister of Labour last February, in apologising for the Government's failure to bring in adequate Regulations, told the House that under the stand-still arrangement the unemployed would not be worse off. They are worse off to-day in many districts than they were before the Regulations were brought in last February. When the ordinary transitional payments were in operation, certain public assistance committees made it a practice to give not merely an extra allowance at Christmas but a coal allowance for the winter months. The present position is that the Unemployment Assistance Board does not grant that coal allowance and, therefore, the unemployed in those districts are so much worse off than they would have been if the House had never seen the Regulations.
The Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to me to-day did not adequately explain the position. He tried to argue that the Unemployment Assistance Board used that discretionary Clause to deal with what may be termed hard eases. I admit that that discretionary Clause can be used to meet hard cases, but that is not the point that I have in mind. I want to know when we are to get the fulfilment of the promise that the unemployed under the stand-still arrangement shall be no worse off than they were before last February? The House ought to be told the real reason why the second appointed day has been put off. I believe it to be because the Ministry is in a muddle with regard to the regulations. It appears to me to be in this position. If it brings in any worse regulations than the present position, it will meet with the same howls of indignation that it got last February. If it

brings in any better regulations it has to find more money, and it does not want to do that. This constant putting off of the appointed day is not treating the House and the country fairly. The House has a right to expect a definite date being put down when the second appointed day will come into operation and, even though we are not going to oppose the Bill, because we recognise that it is an arrangement between the local authorities and the Government, we think that the present situation is unsatisfactory and we hope there will be no unnecessary delay in improving it.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I find the utmost difficulty in following the tortuous phraseology employed by the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this question of those local authorities, whom I understand him to admit to be worse off under this arrangement than they were before. When so distinguished a member of our profession is so ambiguous as he has been, we are entitled to infer that the ambiguity is not accidental, but is deliberate. I understand that he believes that the arrangements ought to work so as not injuriously to affect any local authority. That, I am certain, is the sense of the House, irrespective of party. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to admit, further, that there are some authorities which have been injuriously affected. It is true that he says there are only a few, and that they are not injuriously affected very much, but the question of the number and of the degree is entirely irrelevant to the principle which I understand him to accept. If there is one local authority that is out of pocket by a single pound, there is a breach of the principle which I understand him to accept as the right principle, "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "I have given an undertaking," and the hon. Member behind me was very grateful to the Government for this undertaking. But the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the undertaking amounts to nothing. Suppose the authorities which have lost, on his own admission, came to consult him professionally as to their claim against the Government for the amount by which they had been injuriously affected, and suppose they produced to him an undertaking in the terms that he gave to the House the other night, would he advise


them to be satisfied? Would he on his client's behalf accept an undertaking in those terms, or does he agree with me that any member of our profession who advised a client to accept an undertaking in those terms would be guilty of the grossest professional negligence imaginable and would be entitled, if he lost as the result of accepting that advice, to go to his solicitor and making him personally responsible for every penny of the loss?
The right hon. Gentleman knows that his undertaking was one to examine sympathetically and to do something unspecified which he hoped would satisfy someone unknown. If he meant to give an undertaking which would make it certain that no local authority would be injuriously affected by the postponement of the second appointed day, why does he not give us an explicit undertaking to that effect? He can easily put it right in Committee. There is nothing to prevent his introducing a Clause which will make it clear and beyond cavil that no local authority shall be injuriously affected. If the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there are not many such cases, and that the amount by which they are injuriously affected is very slight, he can take the step that I am inviting him to take with great comfort to himself because, if he is right, it will not cost him very much. Or are we to assume that his reluctance to give that undertaking, his reluctance to put it into the Bill, and his reluctance to make certain that we do not lose, is based on his knowledge that the amount of the loss is nothing like so slight as he would wish the House to believe? He knows that the principle for which we are contending is fair and equitable. I have tried to quote it in his own words. The Association of Municipal Authorities is by no means satisfied on this matter.

Mr. MAITLAND: I do not know why the hon. Member should question the statement which the Secretary of the Municipal Association has made. The hon. Member is new to our proceedings in the House. When a Minister gives an honourable undertaking we know that it will be implemented.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I can assure the hon. Member that I am perfectly prepared to accept an undertaking honourably given by a Minister, but the hon.

Member does not seem to be aware what the undertaking was. Let me read it and ask him whether, if he were one of the persons injuriously affected by it, he would be satisfied:
If there should then be any cases of local authorities which can properly be said to have suffered as a result of the arrangement, although of course I cannot undertake to give a blank cheque to make good any loss which any local authority may have suffered, I do undertake to examine sympathetically hard cases with a view to making special provision for them in such legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1935; col. 1197, Vol. 307.]
He definitely states that, so far from undertaking that he will make it good, he will give no such undertaking.
Although of course I cannot undertake to give a blank cheque to make good any loss which any local authority may have suffered.
That is the undertaking which he declined to give, and which I am urging him to give, because it is the only undertaking that can implement the principle to which he gave his support in his speech to-day. He said they had tried to see, and would see, that no local authority was injuriously affected. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not wish to give the undertaking, not to pretend that he is giving an undertaking which he does not wish and does not intend to give. If he thinks that there are a few local authorities here and there which have suffered some small loss which he does not want to make good, let him say that he prefers that some local authorities shall be inequitably treated because the vast majority are satisfied. If he is not prepared to do that and thinks that the satisfaction of the vast majority is no consolation for those local authorities who have, in fact, lost as a result of the operations of the Government, then I urge him not to dilly-dally and shilly-shally about it, but to introduce a Clause on the Committee stage which will put the matter right once and for all.

4.46 p.m.

Major HILLS: As far as England is concerned, leaving Scotland out of the case, the present arrangement is generally a satisfactory one. It meets the case of a large majority of borough and county councils. That is an undoubted fact which I am certain, would be supported by the representatives of the different localities, but it is unfortunate that there


remain a number of boroughs which for certain reasons well known to the Minister are not satisfied with the present arrangement. I need not go into particulars because they are well known. It is unfortunate, when an arrangement is satisfactory to far the larger part of the country, when cases of hardship are few and when it will not cost very much to put those cases right, that something should not be done. I recognise what the Minister said, and I accept the undertaking so far as it goes, but I should like it to be rather more definite. The cases of Liverpool and of other great towns in the north of England are cases of special hardship, and I believe that the House would be pleased if justice were done to those municipalities who, through no fault of their own, are suffering under the present arrangement.
I would also urge that the appointed day be fixed, as one cannot be satisfied with the present state of things. It is very unsatisfactory that we should have to continue under the provisional arrangement, and I hope that this Bill is the last we shall see putting off the second appointed day, and that before the Bill leaves the House the Government will be able to give the date of the appointed day.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I appeal to the Minister to deal rather more sympathetically with the matter that was last mentioned by the Secretary of State for Scotland the other evening, when, in response to an appeal from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), he declined to make a recommendation to local authorities that they should treat people so that the rate of benefit should be assessed in the same way as it was in respect of the people who were assessed by the board. He said that he would not like to make a recommendation which he had no power to enforce, and that perhaps might be a very good reason in Scotland for not doing it, because it may be that local authorities there are less respectful to the Minister than they are in England. Therefore, I would not ask that a recommendation should be made, but I am sure that if in those areas where the difference still exists—and my constituency is one of them—either the Minister of Health in England or the Secretary of

State for Scotland were to express regret that that difference still exists, and the hope that the local authorities might find it possible to bring their assessments into line with those made by the board, it would have a very good effect in England.
I hope that before the Bill leaves this House such a statement will be made. It really is deplorable that because of the Bill—it is no fault of the unemployed, no matter who else may be blamed—there should still be differentiation in these instances. It is the desire, I am sure, of everyone in the House, irrespective of the side on which they may sit, that the treatment should be uniform and that that uniformity should be in accordance with the best standard that at present prevails. I appeal to one Minister or the other to make a statement that will encourage local authorities, who at the present time interpret the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to make a, recommendation as an indication that he does not desire them to mend their ways, and to be more more generous in this matter than they have been hitherto.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. G. HARDIE: The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway implied that we were in favour of this Bill, but he seems to forget that there are conditions obtaining in some burghs and town councils which can only be met on these lines. He must know that if we could defeat this Bill there would be no money for the unemployed. I cannot conceive why an hon. Member should seek to make capital out of a thing like this. His remarks would imply that no one should do anything but himself. I have been on councils ever since this matter began and can say that they have been very active indeed. The Secretary of State for Scotland knows what force has been coming from the West of Scotland. He realises that the gentlemen who have visited him not only understood the subject, but were from day to day handling a very difficult position. When certain local authorities were forced to increase their rates because the Government had failed in their promise, the matter became still more serious, especially when comparison was made between an industrial area where there were large numbers of unemployed and an area which was practically without any unemploy-


ment. When these comparisons were made the position became more serious in the minds of those responsible for the industrial areas.
The fixing of the appointed day does not seem to matter very much. I am more troubled as to whether anything is to be carried out or not. Any Government which sought to be honest at all would say to every local authority, "We caused you certain difficulties in making a change in the methods of dealing with unemployment. We know the difficulties you have gone through. You have done well by doing all the work that we should have been doing, and so that you shall not be responsible for the extra expenditure we shall see to it that every penny is made good." That would have been an honourable undertaking. It is not a question of only a few authorities not being pleased. Local authorities know that unless this Bill goes through they will be without money.
Small as the Bill may be, see how unfair it is to many. If there had been a sense of fairness on the part of the Government they would have separated the two questions contained in the Bill. They would have dealt with the one point in a single Clause, and would have left all other matters to be dealt with in another Bill under a general heading. They have mixed the thing up in such a way as to complicate matters. I have been on committees in relation to this matter, both in Scotland and in England, and have seen exactly what takes place. No hon. Members opposite can truly say that the proposal metes out full justice for the work and responsibility undertaken by the local authorities, and I hope that before the Bill leaves this House the Minister will give an assurance that, no matter how few boroughs do not agree, the Government would assume full responsibility financially. It is always the smallest borough or county borough that "gets it in the neck." I would remind the House that it is not always the big and strong man who is in the right, and the Government ought now to give an undertaking that no local authority should be a penny the worse for the work it has done.

4.59 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): It may be for the convenience of the House

if I now answer the several points that have been put before the Government on the small Bill presently before the House. Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman behind me, expressed themselves about the undertaking given by the Minister of Health last week as to considering sympathetically any hard cases. When a bargain is arrived at, as it was between the local authorities and the central Government, there is almost certain to be a number of hard cases arising in the interpretation of it and in the action and practice when the bargain is put into force. The undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is well known to all Members of this House, although I can well understand people in certain parts of the country, whether in England, Wales or Scotland, not being so sure that the Parliamentary undertaking will be implemented to the full. Hon. Members who have been long in this House will know that an undertaking of that sort is implemented to the full.

Mr. SILVERMAN: What is the undertaking?

Sir G. COLLINS: Hon. Members, I am sure, will agree with me that an undertaking of that kind is always implemented both in the letter and the spirit. In opening the Debate this afternoon my hon. Friend opposite pointed out that the burden borne by the local authorities has been a heavy one and that they had borne it for a long time. The Government during the last year or two have endeavoured to shoulder a large share of the burden. It is true that their plans have not yet come to full fruition, but they have shown an earnest and keen desire to transfer to the Treasury a large share of the burden borne in the past by local authorities. The hon. Member also touched on the question of the Treasury taking over the full maintenance of the unemployed. That was fully debated last week, and I think therefore he will not expect me to go into that in detail. It will be the Government's intention to see that the appointed day is fixed as soon as possible. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House have complained of the delay in fixing the second appointed day and many have asked whether the Government this afternoon can give any definite date for fixing the second appointed day. In regard to that I must fall back on the reply given


by the Minister of Labour in October last. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and other hon. Members have spoken of the anomalies existing to-day. Undoubtedly it is true that anomalies exist, and it is because of these anomalies that the Minister of Labour is anxious to probe the matter to the bottom. I must fall back on the statement he made in October that:
In these circumstances, it will not be possible to take any action immediately and I do not anticipate that any alteration can be made in the existing position of the stand-still arrangements before next spring at the earliest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1935; col. 2, Vol. 305.]

Mr. N. MACLEAN: The anomalies to which I was referring occur every day in regard to such matters as the increased allowance which is given to children. They arise from things which have happened subsequent to that statement of the Minister of Labour.

Sir G. COLLINS: Undoubtedly there may be anomalies in regard to matters which fall within the discretion of the local authorities. In that case the elected representatives of the ratepayers on the local authorities may take steps if they see fit to rectify them.

Mr. MACLEAN: These things are being done by the officials of the Unemployment Assistance Board in the various localities where these area officers and their assistants are operating.

Sir G. COLLINS: That is a matter for the board and it does not arise under the operation of this Bill. Every hon. Member who has spoken has dealt with one or sometimes with two or three of the points I have dealt with, and although I admit I have not covered them fully they have been dealt with before in the House. As this Bill will not place any extra burden on the local authorities, but simply continues the present arrangement, I submit that it is a simple Bill and a Bill in keeping with the past practice of this House, and therefore I commend it to the House.

Mr. EDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised, of cases where local authorities pay a different rate from that given by the board? Will he say that that will end?

Sir G. COLLINS: I was asked last Thursday to deal with that and I stated quite frankly that I was not in a position

to do so. I think the point raised by the hon. Member really falls into two parts. There may be questions which are directly under the control of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and if that is the case they do not come under this Bill. If, on the other hand, they are matters affecting ratepayers and come within the jurisdiction of local authorities, then I suggest to the hon. Member that this is not a proper place in which to discuss them, but that they should be submitted to the elected representatives of the ratepayers.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. POTTS: As has been stated already, the point about which all local authorities are anxious is when there are likely to be settled conditions. We are constantly getting complaints of the heavy burden on the ratepayers. I myself have given a case in which since the children's allowance was increased a member of one family has had his allowance cut down from 14s. to 12s. There were five children in the family in respect of whom an extra 1s. each was paid, but there was a son 22 years of age, and at the same time 2s. was taken off his allowance. That case I brought to the authorities in my borough, and although I have no official information I am inclined to think it has been remedied. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about tertian boroughs being hard pressed. May I say that I question whether any borough in the country has been more hard pressed than the county borough I represent. I find that on 23rd September there were 8,443 wholly unemployed, and in addition to that we had 4,167 suspended, making a total of 12,610 in a population of just about 72,000. There is also an urban authority in my constituency, and I find that in their area, out of a population of about 9,000, there are 2,187 wholly unemployed men and women, and in addition 1,469 suspended, a total of 3,656. The total figure of unemployment in my constituency is 16,266, out of a population of about 80,000.
In the current year the rates in the borough, which stood at 14s. 9d., have had to be increased chiefly because of the higher cost of unemployment relief. The local authority has had to increase the rates by 4s. 2d. Out of the proceeds of that increased rate £20,000 has had to be spent on relief of unemployment, and the


remainder of the rate of 4s. 2d. is accounted for by the necessity of building a new school and other things. An increase in the rates from 14s. 9d. to 18s. 11d. is a very serious matter and we ask that something should be done. The urban authority in my area cannot possibly go on much longer. What the local authority wants to know and what the unemployed want to know is when there are going to be settled conditions. They want to know where they stand, and I hope the Minister will look into the matter and propose as early as possible a fixed date on which conditions will be settled. At the same time I want to press for improved conditions for the unemployed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go into this matter and let us know where we stand and when some improvement can be made in the lot of unemployed people.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REPRINTING) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

5.12 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill has come to us from another place, and I think it would be convenient if I give a short explanation of it. It does not raise any question of substance. All that, is intended is to reprint the Government of India Act in two parts, one for India and the other for Burma. The House will remember that when we were discussing the Government of India Bill at interminable length it was discussed as one Bill, and it was passed as one Statute. That was done to save Parliamentary time, to save repetition which otherwise would have been more marked than actually was the case. I need not recall to the House the many discussions we had on the Government of India Bill and in fact that point really does not arise. The Bill I now recommend to the House is one to authorise the reprinting

of the Government of India Act in two parts.
It is particularly suitable, I think, at this time when Burma is setting out as a separate unit within the British Commonwealth, that she should have an Act entitled the Government of Burma Act. That will be the result of printing the two Acts separately. One will be an Act for the Government of India and the other an Act for the Government of Burma. It is a reprinting Bill with no alteration of real substance or principle. There is one place to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, where the meaning in the original Act was not clear and we have taken the opportunity in this Bill of clarifying the intention of the original Act. Before explaining that point I will run through the Bill as it is presented. Its objects are set out in the long Title at the beginning of the Bill. It is:
A Bill to divide the Government of India Act, 1935, into two portions and to make in the wording thereof certain changes which either are consequential on the division or remove minor errors; to provide for the certification, the deposit with the Rolls of Parliament, and the printing, of the said portions as if they were separate Acts of Parliament; to secure that the said portions have effect in lieu of the said Government of India Act, 1935, as from the date of the passing of that Act; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
The operative part is contained in Clause 1, divided into three Sub-sections, which give instructions for the reprinting of the Act. The second Clause includes the short Title. When we come to the Schedule I am able to explain to the House more closely the nature of the Amendments proposed. The Amendments may be divided into those which may be classed as printing errors, of which the first is an example, in Part II of the First Schedule. I do not want to say that these errors were due to printers' negligence. They can just as well be attributed to the material handed to the printer, but they can be treated, I think, fairly, as printing errors. The second set of Amendments can be regarded as drafting matters, of which a typical example would be that in line 31, in page 4 of the Bill. A third Amendment, to which I said that I would draw attention is the second Amendment on page 3, Part II of the First Schedule, which alludes to the Chief Commissioner of Baluchistan. That particular Amendment


makes the original meaning of the Act a little clearer. It reads:
In Sub-section (1) of Section ninety-five, the words 'through the Chief Commissioner' shall be omitted.
This is the only possible case where there is any question of any real interest in the Bill apart from printing errors. If hon. Members will turn to Sub-section (3) of Section 94 of the Government of India Act, 1935, they will see that it reads as follows:
A Chief Commissioner's Province shall be administeerd by the Governor-General acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through a Chief Commissioner to be appointed by him in his discretion.
The first Sub-section of the next Section, 95, reads:
In directing and controlling through the Chief Commissioner the administration of British Baluchistan, the Governor-General shall act in his discretion.
There was a fear that if the words "through the Chief Commissioner" were left in Section 95 it would be thought that the Governor-General could only act in his discretion if he acted through the Chief Commissioner, and that therefore the previous Sub-section (3) of Section 94 would not have the meaning we intended it to have. This is the only instance where the original Act has been clarified. Otherwise, the Amendments are mere questions of printing or drafting. The ones that are not concerned with printing or drafting are the necessary machinery consequential on the decision to divide the Act into two parts. I hope therefore that the House will realise that I have drawn their attention to the only point which can be regarded as of any substance whatever, and that does not alter by one iota the original intention of the Act but will make the Act as reprinted clearer than before. I hope the House will see that no point of controversy need arise and that they will regard this first discussion on Indian affairs in this Parliament as a happy harbinger of future harmony in the discussion of Indian affairs. As a result of the reprinting we shall be able to start equal, because we shall all have to re-learn the numbers of the Sections which we had so laboriously to learn on the previous occasion.

Mr. MacLAREN: Will the Under-Secretary say something about the necessary arrangements owing to the divorcement of one Act from the other?

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member desires that I should say a little about the actual machinery for the separation of the two Acts. If he will refer to Clause 1 of the Bill he will see that it is provided that:
The Clerk of the Parliaments shall forthwith prepare two documents containing respectively—
(a) a copy of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, with the changes of wording mentioned in Part II of that Schedule;
We take the Government of India Act and we reprint the parts included in Part I of the First Schedule, with the changes included in Part II, and we shall do the same thing in regard to the Government of Burma Act. If the hon. Member wishes to look at the changes in detail, he will see that the first change is one of printing, the second change raises a question of some slight substance, the third is again the question of printing, the fourth is a question of printing, and the fifth is consequential upon the decision to reprint the Act. For instance, it says:
In Section two hundred and fifty-three, after the words 'notwithstanding anything in this Act,' in both places where those words occur, there shall be inserted the words 'or the Government of Burma Act, 1935,".
I could go through the whole of the Sections and show the hon. Member how each applies to the decision taken by the House, if it passes this Bill in the terms of Clause 1. If the hon. Member will turn to page 2 of the Bill he will see that the second Schedule of the Act is referred to in Sub-section (1) (b). The same process is applied to the Burma part of the Act. He will see that the Bill is a simple Bill to reprint the Government of India Act in two parts.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I think I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side that we shall not take any objection to the purposes which the Under-Secretary has outlined. There is everything to be said for dividing the Act into two parts so as to provide in the one part the provisions for the government of


India and in the other the provisions for the government of Burma. Therefore, so far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned we shall take no objection to the principle that has been indicated by the hon. Member. But we are going to be asked to-morrow to consider the Amendments in detail. In those circumstances I must ask the Under-Secretary which A ct we are to amend. I have a copy of the Government of India Act and I have a copy of the Bill that we carried here. The first Amendment to the Schedule in Part II refers to the changing of the words "of India" to the words "in India." In what I may call the Indian copy—I will call it the Indian copy for convenience—the words are there as they are proposed to be altered, but in the English copy the words are "of India." Those words obviously ought to be altered to "in India," and we ought to know which copy we are going to amend, which is the right and which is the wrong one. That, obviously, is another printer's error.
Most of the Amendments are purely verbal and are obviously necessary, but, as the hon. Member indicated, there are one or two Amendments which seem to be of substance. I do not know what the explanation may be of the alterations proposed, but as I see them there are to be specific and somewhat substantial changes proposed in the Amendments laid down to the Schedule. I will not discuss the matter to-night because no doubt we shall have an ample explanation to-morrow. I content myself with saying that we offer no objection to the Second Reading, but that we reserve what we have to say to any possible discussion on the Amendments.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I would not have intervened had it not been for a particularly felicitous phrase used by the Under-Secretary, when he talked about this Measure as a happy harbinger of future accord between this country and India.

Mr. BUTLER: What I intended to say was that I hoped this Bill would be a good harbinger for the future discussion of Indian affairs in this Parliament.

Mr. MAXTON: I misunderstood the hon. Member I thought that he was expressing a wider hope than that. From

his experience in the past he has no reason to doubt that any discussion there may be on Indian questions will be of a harmonious nature. The reason that I rise is because I was in the House at Question Time to-day, when the hon. Member was asked a number of questions about the treatment of Indians in India.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): That matter cannot possibly arise on this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely it is within my province to move the rejection of the Bill and to offer reasons for so doing.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Obviously it is in the hon. Member's power to move the rejection of the Measure, but the objection must be relevant to the Measure itself. This Measure is very narrow.

Mr. MAXTON: It is a very narrow point that I am proposing to raise. I do net want to trespass against your ruling, but I should have thought that when the House was discussing a fundamental change in a Measure which it passed only a few months ago, dealing with the better government of India, I might have been allowed to raise this point. We are asked to split the Act into two parts. While I would not dream of attempting now to reopen the whole issue of the government of India, I do think that this occasion presents an opportunity for raising matters affecting the Indian people. It would be well within the power of the House to discuss every Clause of the Government of India Act and every Clause of the Government of Burma Act. This is a new Parliament and this is a new issue for this Parliament. I do not want to do anything of the kind. I merely want to raise a question arising out of the phrase "the happy harbinger for future harmony;" that is, that I think it would be desirable that the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend should consider approaching the question of political prisoners in India in a somewhat more generous manner—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I really cannot see that that question arises on this Bill. It may come up as a matter of administration or on a substantive Motion, but it does not appear to me that this Bill, whether it is carried or not, can possibly affect that question.

Mr. STEPHEN: Surely, it is in order to suggest that further changes should be made in the Bill in order to get a more satisfactory state of things in India; that there shall not be all the troubles with particular sections of the Indian people? When a substantial alteration is proposed surely it is within the right of hon. Members to propose other substantial alterations in the Government of India Act with regard to the penal Clauses of that Act in order that the people should be decently treated?

Miss WILKINSON: May I put this point of Order? Is it not possible for hon. Members to move that the Bill instead of being divided into two parts should be divided into four parts until such time as political prisoners in India are decently treated? I am prepared to propose that the Bill should be divided into any number of parts in order to raise the matter.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think if the hon. Member could show that it was possible to divide the Bill into more parts it might be in order to do so, but not for the purpose which she has indicated. In reply to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) this is not a Bill to amend the Government of India Act. It is only a Bill to make minor and consequential alterations where necessary, and on that we cannot possibly go into the merits or demerits of the main Act.

Miss WILKINSON: May I put this point of Order to get your Ruling? If the present Government of India or the Government of India in this country has managed its affairs so badly that it has to bring in a Bill to reprint and redivide, pulling the Act about in various jig-saw ways, surely we have a right to call attention to the fact that they have mismanaged India in other ways; by the treatment of political prisoners?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter of administration, and cannot be raised on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: May I put this point? I do not want to push the matter unduly. The Government say that this is merely a division of the Bill into two parts, but the Under-Secretary has intimated that they desire to be allowed to make one or two other substantial changes as well.

Mr. BUTLER: I only interrupt in order to correct the hon. Member, that we are making one or two other alterations. I said that there was one place in which the meaning of the Act was not clear and that we are clarifying the original intention of the Act. But I explained that there was no alteration of substance.

Mr. MAXTON: In the original Act it is laid down that the Governor-General shall act through a Commission, but the change now proposed means that the Governor-General can act without a Commission—a substantial change. The Under-Secretary says that it is only a change in wording, to make it more clear, but it is one thing for the Minister to say that and another for the House to accept it, and for you Mr. Deputy-Speaker to rule that the procedure of this House is for the convenience of the Government and not for the convenience of hon. Members.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a direct charge against me as to my conduct in the Chair.

Mr. MAXTON: No, I am not doing that. But the Under-Secretary has usurped your position in the Chair by telling you that this is merely a verbal change. That is not his business. It is the business of the Chair to decide whether it is a verbal change or a point of substance. I make this point, very moderately, that if the Government are entitled to make certain substantive changes in this Measure I am entitled on the Second Reading to discuss the measure with a view to inserting other changes which I think are desirable for the purpose of clarification, and that you should accord to me, one of the Opposition in this House, the same right of approaching a Measure as you accord to the Government. I only want to deal with a minor matter, the treatment of political prisoners in India, which is no more a substantial point in reference to the whole question of the Government of India than the substitution of the Governor-General for Governor-General with a Commission. Am I not in order in raising this matter at this stage?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order. It is perfectly true that on Second Reading a great deal


of latitude is allowed, and I hope that that will always be the case, but the arguments must be connected with what the Bill does. We cannot deal with questions which are matters of administration, and the question of the hon. Member is one of administration which this Bill, whether it is carried or not, does not affect. In my judgment the hon. Member is not in order.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask for your Ruling on another point? There is an Amendment to Sub-section (1) of Section 95 to omit the words "through the chief commissioner." Would it be in order to move to delete this Amendment in order to give reasons why we consider the Governor-General should not have this power?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member can hardly expect me to anticipate a Ruling of the Chairman of Committees to-morrow.

Miss WILKINSON: Am I not allowed to move that Amendment now?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Obviously the hon. Lady cannot move an Amendment of that kind on Second Reading.

Miss WILKINSON: I realise that I am not in order, in moving an Amendment on a point of detail like that, but will you permit me to make this appeal to the Minister on the whole question when he deals to-morrow with these matters in detail? I am sure that he would like to get the business through as quicky as possible, and if he could give us an assurance with regard to political prisoners he would find that harmony, to which he has alluded, would be the prevailing mood of the House to-morrow, whereas, if he takes the present attitude of the Department, that nothing can be done with regard to these unfortunate men, thousands of whom are detained in prison without any charge whatever—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! order! I thought the hon. Member was raising a point of Order, but she is now making a speech and asking the Under-Secretary of State to do what I said the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) could not do.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I put this point of Order? If the Bill was rejected it would probably render inoperative to

some extent, possibly to a large extent, the Government of India Act. Is it possible for us to move a reasoned Amendment to reject the Bill on the grounds that we do not want to allow the Bill to be reprinted, because we want to render it inoperative owing to the treatment of Indian political prisoners; that we consider the Government is not a fit body to be trusted with the administration of the Bill? I think we can move a reasoned rejection of the Bill on the ground that it would make the Government of India Act inoperative, because this Government should not be allowed to work it owing to their treatment of Indian political prisoners.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not quite certain that I follow the hon. Member. The question of whether the Government of India Act will be operative or not if the Bill is passed is not one upon which I can pass judgment. It is a matter of opinion, and a matter of administration, which is not the business of the Chair. With regard to the suggested reasoned Amendment I should prefer to see it in writing before I give an opinion.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: I desire to ask one or two questions which I hope will not be irrelevant and, therefore, subject to your adverse Ruling. The Under-Secretary of State has said that this is a new House of Commons and as such is facing a new situation in discussing this Bill. Therefore I claim the indulgence of the Under-Secretary if I put questions which may perhaps be a little lacking in instruction as to where we are. This is one of those small inoffensive Measures which not infrequently are not so small and ineffective when their results are realised. I want to ask why is there to be this division between the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act? What has inspired this division? Who asked for it? If there was anything more distressing than another during the Debates which took place in this House on the Government of India Act it was the confusion of thought which permeated those discussions as to the attitude of Burma regarding that Act. Has Burma asked for the Bill we are now discussing? Burma did not ask for all that was given her in the Act. The case for Burma was never


clearly stated in this House in the discussions, and the Act was forced on Burma against the will of the people of Burma.
I ask: who has inspired this Bill? Has Burma asked for it? Is it in the interests of the democracy and the good administration of Burma that this division should take place? There is much anxiety in India and in Burma as to what may happen if a cleavage takes place between those two countries under the new Constitution. If the separation is made complete then, of course, any common benefits which the two countries have enjoyed will come to an end. Therefore I press my question. I do not want to hold up the progress of the Bill, but I really do want to know what is behind it. There is more in it than meets the eye. Going through the Indian Press, as I have to do every week, one is struck by the tension which exists among the parties concerned both in Burma and in India as to what is likely to happen in regard to the relationship between the two countries when the new Constitution is in full working order. Both Indians in Burma and Burmese communities in India are apprehensive. They are anxious about what is to happen to their property, in both cases, if the cleavage between the countries is made complete, not to speak of trading relationships and the possibility of tariffs by one country against the other.
I only regret that I was not in the House when the Burma proposals were being considered. Burma never asked for this Constitution which is now being foisted upon her and, bearing that in mind, it is imperative that we should know what is behind this so-called simple little Bill. I know, Capt. Bourne, that I must keep within the Ruling of the Chair and be content with having "got over" as much as you have allowed me to "get over" on this occasion, but my sympathies, which are not very often with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) are with him on this occasion. Since we cannot now have the wider debate we would like to have, I hope the Under-Secretary will answer the points, which I put and which are, I think, relevant to the present Debate.

5.47 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: When I intervened previously it was to raise a point of

Order, and you, Captain Bourne, rightly pointed out, I went rather beyond the point of Order. I rise now to offer some remarks on the Bill in general. I wish to say frankly that I disagree profoundly with the idea that any Bill introduced by this Government in regard to India, however small even if it wire only to alter the word "and," ought not to go through the House without examination and discussion while the Government are acting as they are acting in India to-day. I warn the Government that unless we can have before us to-morrow, when we take the Committee stage of the Bill, some guarantee either that there will be an amnesty, or that something will be done for those who are now being detained in India without trial, we shall go through this Bill Clause by Clause and make it extremely difficult for the Government to get it.
Those of us who have been taking an interest in Indian affairs are tired of the assumption that ran through the Minister's speech, the assumption that all these matters are non-controversial and that what is happening in India to-day is not a subject for discussion by this House. I have no wish to transgress even by one inch the Ruling which you, Capt. Bourne, have given, but if the Under-Secretary thinks that he can get this "simple little Bill" as it has been called by a courteous wave of the hands and a sweet smile and that it will be treated as non-controversial, he is mistaken. The hon. Gentleman's Department is one of the most controversial Departments in the Government. If the Government of India cannot manage its own affairs better and has to come to the House with all these Schedules and verbal changes, I do not see why we in this House should be asked to put our names to a blank cheque in the form of a Bill of this kind. I raise my voice in protest against this Bill going through as a non-controversial Measure, while thousands of Indians, whose only crime is love of country, are being kept as prisoners or detenus without trial.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: The question has already been asked, why this Measure is being divided into two parts, and I wish to ask further whether it means that there is to be any difference in treatment between the people of Burma and the people of India. Reference has also been made to


the political prisoners in India. I am not going to raise any points of administration but I wish to know also whether the division of the Measure into two parts means that there will be any difference in the treatment of the prisoners in India and of the prisoners in Burma.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I can speak again only with the permission of the House, but I should like to answer some of the serious and legitimate points which have been raised by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) raised a question as to the Indian copy of the Act. My answer is that this is a copy of the Government of India Act, 1935, as passed by Parliament and published by the King's printer which we are considering. To use the hon. Gentleman's phraseology, it is the home copy of the Act, therefore, that we are considering, and this is the copy that has authority, since it is published by the King's printers. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) asked why the Act was being divided into two parts. It is because the House took the decision that Burma should be separated, when it passed the Government of India Act. It has been thought more convenient and suitable, now that Burma is to be a separated entity, that there should be two Acts, one relating to the Government of India and the other relating to the Government of Burma.
I cannot now go into the whole question of the separation of Burma, and on reading again the long Title of the Act, I agree that it would not be in order to do so. The reason, therefore, for the division of the Act in the manner proposed is simply that the countries concerned are now to be separated and it is more appropriate, in that case, to have one Act entitled "The Government of India Act" and another Act entitled "The Government of Burma Act." It will be more convenient in regard to future references, for instance, that there should be an Act relating solely to Burma, when she has set out on her course as a separate unit. I am afraid it would not be in order to pursue the constitutional points which have been raised nor is it possible for me on this occasion to speak of some of the other points which hon. Members have men-

tioned. I can only say that I am ready at any time to debate in the proper place the points which have been raised. My hope was that this Measure, which is restricted solely to the reprinting of the Act, with one or two minor alterations, would not be regarded as unduly controversial, and would be accepted by the House when the House had been put in possession of the mind of the Government on the subject. I can understand that there may be matters of controversy and, where matters of controversy can properly be raised, there is nobody more ready than I am to place my knowledge at the disposal of the House and to attempt to answer questions raised by hon. Members opposite. But I do not think it would be in order to deal with those matters on this Bill, and I therefore ask the House, with that explanation, to let me have the Second Reading.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To morrow.—[Lieut.- Colonel Llewellin.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS (AGREEMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Treasury to guarantee securities.)

5.56 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. I have submitted a manuscript Amendment on which, Captain Bourne, I wish to ask your Ruling. My Amendment proposes to insert in page 2, line 26, after the words:
If the said agreement is amended by any further agreement
the following words:
there shall be included within such amended agreement a provision to ensure that any worker whose services become redundant as a result of schemes of work comprised in the First Schedule shall receive adequate compensation, with the right of appeal to a tribunal composed of representatives in equal number of the railway workers and of the companies to determine the amount of compensation in each case.
It is contemplated that a new agreement or an amended agreement may be entered into after this scheme has been set in operation and I submit that it is in order to propose that a statutory obligation


should be placed upon the Treasury in such cases to provide for compensation for workers who may become redundant owing to these works. It would be in order I suggest to propose that the Treasury should be under the statutory obligation to insist on a clause to that effect being inserted in the new or amended agreement. I think when the Government are asking us to accept or reject these agreements there is room for laying down the principle of compensation for workers who lose their employment and as far as I can see it is only by such an Amendment that that principle can be introduced. It will be found that there is already in the agreement a certain amount of protection for workers in relation to the fair wages clause and so forth and I suggest that in any future agreements there should also be a provision to deal with compensation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not feel called upon to express an opinion as to what I might hold if the outline which the hon. Member has sketched to the Committee did in fact represent the effect of his Amendment. His Amendment as worded, however, would, if carried, affect any worker who became redundant in consequence of the execution of any of the works mentioned in the Schedule. It would not relate merely to the new agreement or to the workers covered by that agreement. It is, therefore, tantamount to an alteration of the Schedule, and as the Schedule is an agreement between parties outside this House, it is not competent for this House to amend it.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. LATHAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to add:
and no guarantee shall be given under this Act after the date of such further agreement or certificate until such further agreement or certificate has been approved by resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.
I have not the desire or the intention this evening to raise directly or indirectly any of the points to which attention was drawn from these benches when the Bill was previously under consideration. Subject to the qualifications which were then indicated and to which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave a measure of attention, we shall offer no further

objection to the Bill as such; some of us will find no special difficulty in approving the general purpose of the Bill, and we shall be enabled, I think, at any rate after having heard what has been said by the Minister in charge, to vote for it. This Amendment comes into a different category from the comments which so far have been made on the proposals in the Bill, and it will, I hope, evoke no opposition from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sub-section (5) of Clause 1 refers to the agreement which is contained in the Schedule, and apparently it is contemplated that that agreement could be either continued or extended, for it says there:
If the said agreement is amended by any further agreement or by a certificate of the Minister of Transport.
But no provision is made for the approval of Parliament to such an extension, and that seems to me and those who are associated with me to raise a very important question. For that reason the Amendment has been put down, and I sincerely hope that no objection will be raised to it. If it is accepted by the Chancellor, it will allay a good deal of apprehension which has arisen in regard to the intentions of those responsible for this legislation, and I hope we may hear that no objection is raised to it, and that it will be unnecessary for us to press it further upon the consideration of the Committee.

6.3 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I should like, in the first place, to call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that his Amendment covers a very limited field. It will be observed that it refers only to the exercise of a guarantee by the Treasury after any variation in the agreement which is now before the House. If, therefore, as I think is very probable, the finance company raises the whole of the £26,500,000 in one lump, his Amendment would not come into operation, because there would be no further guarantee to be given even though there were a variation afterwards in the agreement.

Mr. LATHAN: Does the Sub-section I have quoted contemplate an extension of the agreement beyond the provisions which are contained in the arrangements for the £26,500,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, but I was coming to that. I wanted, first of all, to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact which I have just pointed out, that in all probability his Amendment would be inoperative, because the whole of the guarantee would be given before any possible amendment or variation of the agreement could take place; but I wanted, if I could, to remove any apprehension that was in his mind by going on to point out to him what the nature of any variation in this agreement is likely to be. I would say at once that I think perhaps his Amendment is justified, because it will draw from me this declaration, that it is, in the first place, impossible so to vary the agreement as to necessitate the expenditure of more money than the £26,500,000. Any variation must be within that £26,500,000. The hon. Member will see there are two possible ways of varying the agreement. The first is by agreement between the parties, that is, between the Treasury and the railway companies, and the second is by a certificate of the Minister of Transport to any particular railway which may desire an amendment, not in the Clauses of the Bill, but in the scheduled works.
The hon. Member will easily see that it might be necessary to make some minor amendment in the schedule of works which the Minister of Transport might consider was justified and would be an advantage—and he has to be satisfied that this is so before giving his certificate. With regard to the other possible variation, which would be obtained by agreement between the parties, that does not require any statutory authority. The parties who have made one agreement can then agree among themselves that they will alter that agreement. But I want to give the hon. Member an assurance that no major alteration is contemplated or would take place by a variation of the agreement of that kind. All that is intended here is to cover the possibility that the railway companies might submit that some minor variation was desirable, and if the Treasury were of opinion that they were justified, the Treasury would then have power to agree to that alteration.
Last of all, I would like to point out to him that if he concedes, as I think he would concede, that a provision of that kind was reasonable—when you are start-

ing out on a great schedule of works of this magnitude, you cannot foresee everything, and it is therefore desirable to have some little measure of elasticity—he will see that if his Amendment were carried, it would really make it impossible to have any variation, because the railway company in question would at once say—that is, assuming that only a part of the money had been guaranteed—"We cannot agree to any alteration, because that would involve going back to the House of Commons to get approval for a further guarantee, and if the House of Commons withheld that approval, we should lose the guarantee on the remainder of the money and we should find ourselves half way through the scheme and unable to complete it." The only result would be that they would say, "However desirable this alteration may be, however much we may count on the sympathy and agreement of the Treasury, we must not make it, because we cannot afford to run the risk of losing the guarantee on the remainder of the money." In those circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the only change adumbrated is a minor variation, but in point of fact the words admit of a much wider interpretation than that. In the Schedule, on page 4, he will find these words:
Provided that if any one of the Railway Companies shall hereafter satisfy the Minister of Transport that it is desirable that any of the works comprised in the First Schedule hereto which it is intended it shall carry out should be varied or that additional work should be added thereto.…
That seems to include not merely minor variations, but any additional work that the companies might think desirable.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is covered again by the total amount. We cannot exceed the £26,500,000, and therefore no substantial addition could be made, because that would immediately mean more money. But it is possible that they might wish to substitute some additional work in one direction and take out of the schedule work in another direction.

Mr. WALKDEN: What would be the position if, at the end of the agreed period, the railway companies wanted a further five years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is provided, I think, that the time may be extended, with the permission of the Minister of Transport. I cannot at the moment remember where it is, but I think there is a provision to that effect.

Mr. WALKDEN: I think it is very desirable that that should come before the House.

Mr. BELLENGER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this £26,500,000 is being raised by the finance company in one sum?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I did not say that. I could not, because the company is not yet formed, and, of course, it will have it in its own discretion, but I said I thought it was likely that it would be raised in one sum, in which case the Amendment would not come into operation.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. D. EVANS: The work indicated in the schedule, we are told, is work which the railway company would not normally do; it is abnormal work. On page 3, in the schedule, there is a reference to works which the railway companies "are unable to undertake," but in the discussions which we have had it has been pointed lout that the work in the schedule is work which the railway companies would not normally do. What security is there, apart from such a proposal as is contained in the Amendment, that any change in the work suggested may not lead to some such works as would normally be done apart from the protection of this House? I suggest that this Amendment is necessary in order to secure that, whatever variation there may be, the work eventually carried out is work which the companies would not be obligated to do in any circumstances.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member does not quite appreciate what is involved here. An agreement which requires the assent of the Treasury would, of course, be subject to the same conditions which were imposed by the Treasury in negotiating the original agreement, and considering that we spent many weeks in going through every item and in making certain that it was work which could be assisted under such conditions by us, and was not work which

the railways would in the ordinary course be doing, he may be certain we should not relax that condition in permitting any variation.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. LATHAN: The position, as I see it, is this, that the approval of the House is being sought in regard to a definite schedule of works which are to be covered by the amount of money mentioned, namely, £26,500,000. We have no desire unnecessarily to interfere in so far as there may be found to be a need for making variations of a detailed character in regard to the work that is to be carried out, but the terms of the Bill seem to suggest a contemplated extension. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will assure us that, apart from the details to which he has alluded, which conceivably may be necessary, no extension of the arrangement is contemplated, I think it will be satisfactory to us.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry I cannot give an assurance in such specific terms as that. What I have said is that no major alterations are contemplated, and that, I think, is as much as the hon. Member should ask me to undertake. When he asks if I will give an undertaking that there shall be no extension, I answer "No," because the extension is one of the things which might be in the nature of a minor alteration. As I pointed out in reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), there might be extensions in one direction accompanied or set off by contractions in another direction, but they would be only minor alterations arising out of considerations that cannot be foreseen at the commencement of such a big undertaking as this. On the top of page 4 is a provision about the time during which the works are to be completed. They are to be completed
not later than the 1st day of January, 1941, or within such farther period as the Minister of Transport may allow.
That is only to allow for possible accidents.

Mr. WALKDEN: My concern was about the period of the credit to be allowed.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There cannot be any alteration in that.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I pursue a point which I raised the other evening with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? Sub-section (5) of Clause 1 begins:
If the said agreement is amended by any further agreement.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will direct his attention to the point I raised the other evening, namely, that in the Schedule to the Bill there is the provision—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better dispose of the Amendment before the Committee first. The hon. Member can raise his point on the question that the Clause stand part.

Mr. LATHAN: In consideration of the undertaking given by the Chancellor, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.17 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Those of us who represent areas which are very distressed are anxious to know whether all the work which will be given in consequence of this big sum being guaranteed is to be confined to the special areas. When I raised this point the other evening, the Financial Secretary was good enough to say:
With regard to the provision in the contract that the work is to be given, other things being equal, in the special areas, those words, of course, do not mean that areas outside the special areas will not have any of this work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1935; col. 1063, Vol. 307.]
If we pass this Schedule to-night, does it mean in effect that the promise made by the hon. and learned Gentleman will be of no avail? The words are specific on page 10 of the Schedule that all this work, other considerations being equal, shall be confined to the special areas. I have pointed out on several occasions that there are parts of this country—and I speak for one considerable area—where the distress in parts is much snore severe than the distress which prevails in what are legally termed special areas. The contention that I have always tried to make is that when such guarantees as these are given, it is not fair to confine the spending of the money for the pur-

poses of securing employment to what are legally defined as special areas when, in fact, other areas have been depressed since that definition was agreed upon, and are now in a much worse position than some of the special areas which are to be benefited by the words in the Schedule.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The literal answer to the hon. Member's question whether this means that the work is confined to the special areas is "No." It does not mean that, and it cannot possibly mean that. I think, however, that what the hon. Member was really asking for was something rather more than a literal answer to his question. It amounted to a request that the definition of "special areas" should be extended so as to include other areas which, the hon. Member alleges, are just as badly off as the special areas. As to that, I cannot give him any satisfaction. I cannot undertake on this Bill that the definition of "special areas" shall be extended. It is not a new point, as the hon. Member knows very well. It is often raised, but the practice up to the present has been that the special areas as defined have had this amount of preference, not only on occasions of this sort when we are dealing with special projects, but in all Government contracts. It has not been found that in consequence a very large amount of work has been given to the special areas. That, of course, arises from the fact that preference only takes effect "other things being equal," and other things are hardly ever equal. There is really very little that this Clause can do for the special areas, and, seeing how little there can be done for the special areas in the way of putting work there, we must adhere to this principle, and whenever we can find an opportunity of giving them a little preference, we must try to do so.

6.22 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: May I ask your guidance, Captain Bourne, on a point of Order. The last two speeches seem to have dealt with a matter which is practically covered by a proposed new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), namely:
The Minister of Labour shall select the areas from which additional labour for


carrying out the works referred to in the First Schedule shall be drawn, and the determining consideration in selecting areas from which such additional labour shall be drawn shall be the percentage of unemployment in those areas.
We have no guidance whether that proposed new Clause will be in order. If it is not, those who are interested in the matter would like to take their part in the Debate now, but if it is in order, they will wait until their Clause is called.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have given the proposed Clause careful consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that it is an attempt to do by a side wind what is against the practice of this House, namely, to amend an agreement which has been arrived at between parties outside the House. It seemed to me that if this proposed Clause had any effect, it must be substantially to alter that agreement.

Miss LLOYD GEORGE: I see that the Financial Secretary said in the House on Friday that if some variations were needed in the definition of what was meant by a special area for the purposes of this agreement, he had not the least doubt that the railway companies would agree to modify the agreement accordingly. Would it be in order to modify the agreement to that extent? It seems to me that it would mean a substantial alteration and would, in fact, mean something which the Chancellor has just told us would be impossible, namely, an alteration in the definition of the special areas. I do not see how else the agreement could be modified except to mean that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that is not a matter for me. The agreement can only be modified with the consent of all the parties to it including the Treasury. What view the various parties might take to suggestions like that, is not a matter for me.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): If the hon. Lady looks at what I said, she will see that I was making the same reply as that which has been given by my right hon. Friend. I was saying that the definition of a special area could not be altered in this Bill, but that if, as a result of subsequent legislation, the

matter were reconsidered or some other definition were given, it might be possible by agreement between the parties to introduce that new definition instead of the one that exists.

Mr. MATHERS: The hon. Member has anticipated the point that I wanted to put. It was that this work is to extend over a considerable period and that during that time the special areas may be altered. I want to ask the Chancellor what are the opportunities open to Parliament to alter these special areas and to cause an extension to be made that will be beneficial to those areas that are now shut out from the opportunities provided by this Bill?

6.26 p.m.

Miss LLOYD GEORGE: As my proposed new Clause will be out of order, may I make the few observations which I should have made in moving it? It seems to many of us in various quarters of the House that this scheme—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: This Debate should really, of course, have taken place on the Question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill." I have allowed it on the Clause, but it must be clearly understood that the question must not be redebated on the Schedule.

Miss LLOYD GEORGE: The point I was about to make is that this agreement provides the largest work-providing scheme which the Government have brought before the House. It involves a fairly substantial sum of money, and the Financial Secretary has assured us that it will be the means of giving employment of 120,000 man-years. He assured us that he knew exactly what that meant. In spite of all that, there is only one passing reference to special areas. That is in the proviso which has been discussed already, namely, that, other things being equal—and the Chancellor has told us not to put too much reliance on that—materials and machinery shall be manufactured in the distressed areas. I was sorry to hear the Chancellor say that he did not think it would be possible to alter the definition of a special area in this agreement. I hoped very much that it would be possible to get away from this rigid definition, which leaves out of benefit areas where unemployment in many cases is higher than it is in those areas which are scheduled as special


areas. I think that there is a general feeling in the House that not special areas only, but areas where the burden of unemployment is heaviest, will not get the benefit to which, I think, they are entitled under this agreement, seeing that Parliament is guaranteeing a large sum of money. No one expects the railway companies to invent schemes in the distressed areas. No one would be so unreasonable as to expect that of them. I should like, however, to quote a passage from the "Times," of 19th June, 1935, in which a special correspondent, in giving a survey of the needs of the railways, said:
There is a scheme ready for the electrification of the line south of the Tyne, from Newcastle to South Shields. This area has suffered severely during the recent period of depression, but it is regarded as a very promising ground for electrification.
The correspondent went on to say.
In the Glasgow area, the Cathcart circle and the line on the north bank of the Clyde to Helensburgh might bring in an additional revenue if electified, and there are possibilities of useful electrification work at Manchester and Birmingham.
Only the Manchester scheme of those schemes which would affect the distressed areas is mentioned in the Schedule. In the scheme of the Great Western Railway which serves South Wales, one of the most depressed areas in this country, there are only two instances which will give direct employment there.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Lady is now going on to discuss a question which would be much better left until we come to the Schedule of the Bill. I did allow the question whether, other things being equal, the work should be given to what are technically known as "special areas," or whether there should be some widening of that definition, to be raised on this Clause, but I think the question of the works named in the Schedule should be raised when we come to the Schedule.

Miss LLOYD GEORGE: Is it competent for me to discuss now work that might be given indirectly as a result of schemes contained in the Schedule?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that question would be better discussed on the Schedule. It seems to me that we are getting to points which are strictly relevant to the Schedule.

Miss LLOYD GEORGE: Naturally I shall defer to your Ruling and not pursue that point, but before resuming my seat I should like to say, if it be in order, that it seems extremely hard to one who, like myself, represents an area with a railway town where 41 per cent. of the insured population are out of employment, that many of these works schemes are to be found in areas where the percentage of unemployment is as low as 2 or 6 per cent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is just one of those points which ought to be raised on the Schedule.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently made a statement that the distressed areas could not expect much from the operations of this Measure when it becomes law. In my mind there has never been any doubt on that point, because there can be no incentive to a railway company to go into a derelict industrial area to spend money. Such an area is like the back court of a slum tenement which has been condemned by the sanitary authorities, and to seek to make the public believe that any of this money is going to be dispensed on behalf of distressed areas is to mislead the public, to put it mildly. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) knows that no railway company, including the one of which he is chairman, is going into any derelict industrial area. He knows that the engineers upon whom he depends for any information which he gives to this House would not advise him to do so. As an engineer myself I should advise no one to do a stupid thing like that. If any benefit does come to one of the distressed areas it will be only incidental, and not a direct result of this Measure. The new money is not to go to help distressed areas, but to develop new areas where there are possibilities of increasing not only the income of the railway companies but increasing every kind of value, including, especially, land values.
The public are to be given an impression that this is a Measure to help the distressed areas, whereas it is to make possible the development of new areas for the class which has always fattened and battened on such Acts of Parliament. Of this £30,000,000 not one halfpenny will be spent directly in a distressed area. Every engineer knows that. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd


George) spoke about the electrification of railways in certain parts of Scotland. I belong to the district mentioned and know the conditions there. Under the control of the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the London and North-Eastern Railway there are two sections of underground railway in Scotland which have been holy horrors ever since they were built, but no mention is made of them. Glasgow, although not yet classed as a distressed area, is really from the numbers of its unemployed, more than a distressed area, but there has been no suggestion of doing anything with regard to those lines in the interests of the convenience and the health of the public.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the point which the hon. Member is now raising would come better on the question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. HARDIE: I will reserve my right to speak then, and will conclude by saying that the statements which have been made from the Treasury Bench trying to make it appear as if this were a scheme to help distressed areas are absolutely without warrant. We know, and the right hon. Member for Hillhead knows, that the whole matter has been mapped out. The railway companies know the areas where the work will be done and so does the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and yet they come to Parliament trying to make it appear that this money is going into the distressed areas, which, in fact, will get nothing but a little incidental work. The works of the railway companies in different centres have, for a long time, been on short time or half time, and the railway companies are going to make use of their own works, which are not scheduled as distressed areas. They have the skilled men there, and it is the proper thing to do—always to take your work where the greatest ability of hand and brain is to be found. I agree with that. But, knowing all that, the parties concerned still talk about doing something for distressed areas. I had hoped there would be more honesty on their part.

6.37 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) has

again indulged in a series of admonitions to me on the way in which I ought to administer the Great Western Railway Company. Previously I have taken no notice of him, but I do so on the present occasion because many people who come from constituencies South of the Tweed might be very much misled by the hon. Member's attitude. As a colleague of mine in the representation of the city of Glasgow he is really only anxious that I should do my job as well as possible, and he is, therefore, eager to instruct me, in order that I may not fall down upon the great undertaking of which I am chairman. On the other hand, while he sometimes appears to address himself to his points with great rudeness that, after all, is only a method in Scotland of showing extreme affection. I should like to reciprocate these genial attentions in order that the hon. Gentleman may not fall into error. Many things in his speech—in fact the whole of his speech—are a complete fallacy.
So far from these operations of the Great Western Railway Company having no effect on the distressed areas let the Committee note what the Schedule contains. One item is the building of a new railway line. The whole of the rails will be ordered from South Wales, which is a distressed area. A huge number of old stations are to be reconstructed—but there is no extension of territory by which new land values will be created in these cases. All the constructional steel for these works will be ordered from depressed areas. So far from its being true that we are misleading the House of Commons, all that this Measure does is to give effect to an agreement made by the railway companies and the Treasury, which we intend faithfully to keep. The suggestion that we are here to mislead the House of Commons and impose a deception upon it is something entirely unworthy of anybody connected with the House, and why the hon. Gentleman should feel justified, in his complete ignorance, in making such suggestions I cannot think. No amount of genial attention such as he is paying to me can justify him in putting such a statement before the House of Commons.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Report and accounts of finance company to be laid before Parliament.)

"The finance company to be formed in pursuance of Clause 3 of the agreement set out in the Schedule to this Act shall prepare annually a report of their operations, together with a statement of accounts in a form to be prescribed by the Treasury and such report and statement shall be laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Morgan. Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already told us that he has spotted some old favourites among our arguments, and I am sure that he will recognise an old friend in this Clause. I move this Clause in the same spirit in which I moved similar Clauses in the preceding Parliament. As he knows, I have the honour of being a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and was Chairman of it for four years in the last Parliament, and although I have no right to speak for that Committee I am sure that the members of it will be interested in—I do not say ready to support—the principle of this new Clause. Of recent years there has been a growing tendency to create a number of public or semi-public bodies and a demand has arisen that where public money was involved—in other cases public money was actually being paid out—Parliament ought to have some sort of guarantee, through an examination of the accounts, that the money was spent for the purposes for which it was originally allocated.
This Clause refers to the Finance Company which is to be set up under this agreement. I make the admission that the Finance Company will not be in exactly the same position as some of the boards we discussed in the previous Parliament, but though there is a difference between them they still have something in common. It might happen, I do not say that it will, that the Government might be called upon to give effect to this guarantee. Let us hope that nothing of the sort will happen, but it might happen—it will depend on the wisdom or un-wisdom of the Finance Company itself; and if by some unfortunate circumstance the Finance Company should have to call upon the Government to give effect to the guarantee, obviously this Clause would

take on a very real value and virtue. If public money has to be called for, it is right that the House of Commons should have a definite voice in the disbursement of that money, and that is the principle which is at stake in this new Clause.
The Finance Company should prepare an annual report of its operations. That report should be accompanied by a statement of its accounts in a form to be prescribed by the Treasury, and should be submitted to Parliament for examination. This is quite familiar ground for the Chancellor, as it is for hon. Members who were in the last Parliament. The principle remains the same wherever public money is involved; Parliament, which gives authority for the disbursement of the money, should have a guarantee that that disbursement takes place in accordance with the intentions of Parliament.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Every hon. Member who was in the last Parliament knows that upon the Public Accounts Committee the hon. Member was a very vigilant guardian of the public interest, and of the principles to be observed in dealing with public money. The hon. Member will remember that in the last Parliament we dealt with a Bill which was in many respects similar to that which is now before us. I gathered that he was going to refer to a similar new Clause having been moved on that occasion, but as far as I can recollect he did not move that new Clause on that occasion. The reason was obvious, namely, that it was not necessary to have a Clause of the kind in relation to a Finance Company of the sort contemplated in the Bill. As the hon. Member said, a Finance Company is not quite the same thing as the boards which we have discussed on other occasions. The Finance Company is a public company and subject therefore to the Companies Acts. It must prepare and publish its accounts every year in a form prescribed by the Companies Acts. Therefore the whole of the financial operations of the company are bound, in the ordinary course of things, to be made public.
On the question whether the Treasury might have to implement its guarantee and whether that would be dependent upon the operations of the Finance Company, my reply is that I do not think


so. The implementing of the guarantee would depend upon the railway companies' defaulting upon the payment of interest or the repayment of principal, but neither of those two things is likely to be seriously affected by anything done by the Finance Company. The Finance Company is concerned with the raising of the money and with the investment of that part of the money which is not being re-lent to the railway companies, and these are not matters which are likely to have any effect upon the defaulting or otherwise of the railway companies. I hope that what I have said will convince the hon. Member that there is no occasion for anything further affecting this Finance Company than the provisions of the Companies Acts, under which the company is bound to publish its accounts.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: Will any detailed information be submitted to Parliament or to the community as to how the money is being extended, say over 12 months?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. It is always possible for an hon. Member to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon any particular point upon which information is required, or the matter can be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment. The House will always have power to obtain information, if it thinks that information should be given upon any operation or activity of the company, by a way of question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I am sorry if I am asking a question upon information which has been previously given. Are there any general restrictions governing the fields in which this Finance Company may invest its funds, pending the advance to the railway companies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, nothing further than is laid down in the Bill.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that some of us are not as confident in the financial capacity of the directors of these companies as are some hon. Members on the other side? Our confidence has been shaken by events which have occurred in the City of London lately, and it is not wise of this Committee to authorise that this £28,000,000 be placed in the hands

of the Finance Company, whose directors we do not know, subject to no principles or restrictions whatever, to be invested at their discretion and in a manner which, if it be faulty, will involve the State in losses. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will not impose upon this company restrictions such as are imposed upon trustees?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That cannot possibly arise on this new Clause.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: May I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave as one reason for not accepting this new Clause, that no question of loss would arise because the Finance Company was merely going to advance money to the railways or to invest it on some proposition within its power. We maintain that if the Finance Company is to have complete freedom to invest, that is a very good reason why we should insist upon this Clause being put in, to provide us with a report as to how the money is being invested. That may savour of locking the stable door after the horse has escaped, but it is surely a reason for advancing the Clause and urging it upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We ought to have some general restrictions upon the investment of this money or, failing that, this Clause should be adopted to enable us to supervise the investment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am delighted to think that the hon. Gentleman has such a high opinion of the financial ability of this House that he would trust it to select investments which he would not entrust to the directors of the Finance Company, who are gentlemen of the highest standing in the City. He said that I had stated that the directors would have liberty to invest this money entirely at their discretion, but that is not what I said. I said that there would be no other restrictions than those which are laid down in the Bill. If the hon. Member looks at Clause 7 of the Schedule to the Bill he will see that it deals with the particular matter of investment, and that the directors are not to be allowed to invest the money without first having consulted with the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask for any higher authority than the Treasury.

Mr. BELLENGER: Will the directors be Treasury nominees?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. They will be selected among men of the highest standing in the City. If the precedent of the London Passenger Transport agreement be followed, I think the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied.

Mr. BELLENGER: Will it be done in consultation with the Treasury?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Treasury are always consulted in these matters.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Who will select the directors of the Finance Company?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bank of England. The Treasury will be consulted by the Bank of England.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: In spite of the somewhat airy manner in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with my question—I am not going to press it—he has in no way disposed of it. Consultation is not an adequate guarantee. The Finance Company may consult with the Treasury six times in the week, and then proceed to invest the money as it thinks fit. If power of restriction were in the hands of the Treasury, or if their advice were mandatory, we should be quite happy about the position, but, these directors are to have £28,000,000 of State money, and have merely to call in the Treasury once in every six months.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's point is not relevant to the question now before us, which deals with the presentation of a report to Parliament.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Surely it is relevant to suggest that if a report be presented to Parliament that would be a safeguard. If no report is to be presented to Parliament, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recommended, we ought to have greater restriction upon the directors of the Finance Company. I merely point this out in case the Committee should regret its rashness, if that is not too strong a word, in allowing these directors to have carte blanche—because that is what they will get—to invest this money how and where they think fit. If they can merely say that they have asked the Treasury for some general principles in regard to their investments, they will be free from any responsibility as to where they have in-

vested the money. That is not an adequate safeguard, and I trust that my hon. Friend who has proposed this Clause will press it to a Division, if we do not receive greater satisfaction.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the railway companies present their returns, and that this Finance Company will also present its returns every year. There is therefore some merit in what he said, and the second part of my proposed new Clause has not the merit which I thought it had. May I return to the first part, as to a report of the operations of the Finance Company? I believe that the Minister of Transport compiles from the returns of the railway companies a report dealing with their year's work. Will it be possible for the Chancellor to give us an undertaking that the Minister of Transport will set aside a special section of his report dealing with this particular expenditure, in order that the House may be in possession of information as to what has happened to this £26,500,000? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider that suggection which, if it does not give us all that we ask for, would go at least half-way towards removing our objection?

6.58 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that any company which is registered at Somerset House has to register its memorandum and articles of association. It is true that unless the directors go outside the powers conferred upon them by their memorandum they cannot be interfered with by any outside authority. Would the Chancellor tell the Committee whether he has seen the memorandum of association of this company, and if he has, whether he can assure the House that the powers that are to be given to the Finance Company are consistent with the contents of the Schedule? If he can, we on this side of the House may be reassured.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: In the consultation with the Treasury, will the Treasury have any power of veto? The Finance Company will have very general powers to invest this surplus money in any industrial concern whatever. If they be


men of a speculative turn of mind, they will be liable to invest this public money, which directly does not concern them—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that point does not arise on this new Clause. All that the new Clause suggests is that a statement of the operations of the company be laid before Parliament. The hon. Member is now asking for something which this Clause does not suggest.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: We are concerned with supervision of the operations of the directors of the Finance Company. Surely it is relevant to raise that point in discussing a Clause which suggests that the supervision should consist of a report presented to this House. What other argument can we advance? We are advancing arguments in favour of supervision of these investments, and that is the point to which the proposed new Clause is addressed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has been absent from our deliberations some time, and perhaps has forgotten that in Committee we are kept very strictly to the wording of an Amendment. You cannot argue in Committee on various things not expressed in the Amendment itself.

7.0 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: I would like to make a suggestion with regard to the new Clause. I see the point that as the company is a statutory company it would, of course, make an annual report and present its accounts in a proper way. That being so, it seems to me that the Committee would be unreasonable if it expected to have a statement of accounts as well as that which would ordinarily be made. As I also have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for two or three years, it strikes me that there is some point in asking for an annual report of operations. I do not want to go into the question of what the accounts of a company contain and what, sometimes, they do not contain, but it seems to me that, apart from our right of asking questions, when we give guarantees which might possibly result in our having to pay public money we should have something in the nature of an annual report on how the body is getting on—whether they have raised half the money, and whether the money has been so spent as

to do half the work, and whether, therefore, it seems as if the money to be raised will cover the works as originally contemplated. Information of that kind would enable the House of Commons to keep its eye and its hand on these matters. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not consider it at another stage, and whether he would not accept something like this Clause, although not in the fuller form requiring, a statement of accounts.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be very glad to meet my hon. Friends on this point if I thought their suggestions would be valuable in achieving the object which they have in mind, but I suggest to them that a proposal for an annual report would not do what they want. If, as one hon. Member said, the House of Commons is to keep a sort of running control over the operations of this company, it must have information at much shorter intervals than those of a year, when everything will probably be done and over, and there will be no opportunity of doing more than pronouncing the epitaph. Surely hon. Members have in mind something much more periodical than that, and, as I have already pointed out, that can be obtained. The Government will be only too anxious to afford the House every information it can properly require at any time about the operations of this company, and there is no need for any special provision in the Bill to enable it to be done.
It is specified in the agreement that the company is to be formed for the purpose of raising a certain sum of money and re-lending that money to the four main line railways. That would be all it would have to do if the railways would be ready to take from it the whole of the money as soon as it was raised. It is only because we are anxious to make certain of the specially favourable conditions now prevailing in the money market, and therefore wish to raise the whole of the money at once, that the problem arises of what is to be done with the money which is not being used by the railways immediately. It is provided in the agreement that that money shall be invested and the investment is to be carried out by the directors of the Finance Company after consultation with the Treasury.
Some hon. Members almost seem to think that the directors would be speculating people who might be running away and putting this money in pepper or shellac. Let me point out that the people who are to serve on the board of this Finance Company, if the previous example is to be followed, will be gentlemen who will be simply doing that work from a sense of public duty, and will not receive any fees. Who is to lose, or who is to gain by any fault on their part, or by any extra astuteness on their part? It is public money that is involved here, and it is specially laid down in the agreement that any losses that may be involved shall be borne by the railway companies. Is it suggested that speculative losses on the faulty investment of £26,500,000 will produce such a terrible result that the railway companies will default on their interest as a result of those losses.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

7.8 p.m.

Miss LLOYD GEORGE: We find that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company have in the Schedule the rebuilding of Easton terminus, and I want to know, as that will involve a good deal of additional employment, where that additional labour is likely to be found. Is it to come from the London area, where the percentage of unemployment is something between six and eight? There is also the question of the construction of 270 new carriages to be undertaken by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. I understand that the company has special machinery at Wolverton for this type of work, and also at Earls-town. Wolverton has an unemployment percentage of two, and the other place a percentage of 15. I would like to know whether we can get an assurance that the additional labour will be brought from the distressed areas. In the case of the Southern Railway most of the schemes will be confined to the Southern Counties, where the percentage of unemployment is very low. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us an assurance, and if not whether he would undertake to make a recommendation to

the railway companies, that where they have to draw on additional labour they will as far as possible do so from the distressed areas.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. SHORT: By your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, you have made it clear that it is not within the province of the Committee to alter this agreement, but I think we are entitled to mention the omission from the agreement of something which we think might reasonably have been included. In all these matters of nationalisation of industry, the changing methods of production, and the adoption of new motive power which it is indicated is likely to take place under this Schedule, there is a growing fear that labour now engaged on productive work will ultimately become redundant. When that fear has been expressed in the House we have from time to time attempted to incorporate in our legislation, and succeeded in incorporating on occasions—notably in connection with the Electricity Acts—some provision by way of compensation for workpeople who are dismissed because of the changed conditions governing their employment.
It will be seen that in parts 2, 3 and 4 of this Schedule reference is made to electrification of various lines. It is clear that this will not be done all at once, but we can visualise a state of affairs when the electrification will be complete and the motive power will not be the magnificent locomotives now drawing the passenger and goods traffic, but will be powerful motor and electric engines that will take their place. Unless there is some attempt by the railway companies to absorb on the manufacture of electrical machinery the highly skilled workers now employed in the manufacture of locomotives, their labour will become redundant. It may be that unless care is taken we shall have some railway centres becoming almost distressed or derelict areas because the manufacture of the requisite machinery will have been transferred to some other district. Therefore, I think we are entitled to ask that in this agreement, having regard to the future development of industry which we are now encouraging by State aid, we should ensure that the workpeople shall be free from the grave danger and distress of being made redundant and possibly becoming derelict and increasing the charges thrown on the local rates.
I would appeal, therefore, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if in the course of this policy of developing industry similar agreements are entered into, there should be some Clause which would remove the fears and meet the dangers which are ever uppermost in the minds of working men who have nothing to sell but their labour power. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) is not now in his place, because he was in such a genial mood that I was hoping to hear from him that the railway companies, and particularly the one with which he is associated, take a generous view of this matter. While I admit, Captain Bourne, that under your Ruling the matter cannot be discussed now, I venture to hope that we may have an assurance that this aspect of the development of our industry will be kept in mind, and that in future provision will be made against these unfortunate occurrences which create so much distress not merely to individuals, but to the localities in which they reside.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: Since this Bill was introduced, some opinions have been expressed with regard to the subject of railway electrification. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) is not now in the Committee, but I would like to say, in reply to a remark of his about ignorance, that in my case it, is not a question of ignorance, but of knowledge which I possess, not only of this subject but of others. Many people shout about the question of electrification without knowing the first thing about it. Unless you can use the full amount of power generated by any electrical machine, it does not pay to run it, and that has not been understood by the railway companies. The engineers employed by the railway companies have that knowledge, but are not allowed to give it to the great directors such as the right hon. Gentleman who has just left the Committee. They are too insignificant to speak in the presence of these great railway magnates. That is the mistake that the railway companies have made—they have not allowed the trained brains and intelligence of the man who run the railways to have some say in regard to electrification.
In this subject the Germans have always led, and they are leading now. Let me give an illustration. In Glasgow we have two sections of underground railway running through the City, one owned by the London Midland and Scottish and the other owned by the London and North Eastern Railway. On the London and North Eastern Railway the trains start from Edinburgh and go down to Helensburgh, while on the London Midland and Scottish they are generally run from Bothwell through the City to Loch Lomond. In passing through the City they go underground for six or seven miles. It would be false economy to electrify those six or seven miles, despite the fact that at the mouth of each tunnel there is one of the biggest generating stations in Britain. General electrification pays, but partial electrification does not pay. In Germany, however, they use a combination of steam and electric traction. When a train running on steam comes near to an underground section of the line, the change-over to electric traction is made. In running through very long tunnels this obviates the presence of fumes which cannot be condensed. When underground railways were first started in Glasgow, there was such an outcry about the fumes that they tried to condense the smoke, and alongside the boiler of each locomotive there was built a right and a left condenser. The right condenser—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I fail to see how the hon. Member connects this argument with the Schedule.

Mr. HARDIE: I am trying to show a means whereby electrification might be used in combination with steam, whereas if some such combination were not used a great opportunity might be lost. In tunnel work it is necessary, if you are to get traffic, to suit the passengers' convenience. In the case of the Glasgow trams, or any trams that run in the same direction as an underground railway, unless the railway is electrified the trams get the business, and, with the increase of road transport, it behoves all underground railway companies to put their lines in the very best condition. Electrification ought to be the whole purpose of all the companies—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not the moment for a general discussion on the subject of electrification. The hon. Member will have an opportunity of


raising that matter when the Bill itself is before the House.

Mr. HARDIE: During the passage of the Electricity Bill in 1926, the railway companies fought against being included within the national supply, and surely it is in order, in dealing with a Schedule mentioning electrification, to deal with the fact that they refused to take the national supply as against a point supply of their own?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not on this occasion.

Mr. HARDIE: I should like to know why electrification is mentioned at all if it cannot be discussed. I am not discussing it apart from the question of railways. If I were, I could understand being ruled out of order, but I fail to understand why I am ruled out of order when I am dealing with it only as it applies to railways.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The reason why the hon. Member cannot raise the subject now is that we are dealing here with specific works. We are not dealing with the general question of the railways, but with specific works which are mentioned in a: Schedule. The question which the hon. Member is raising goes far outside anything of that kind.

Mr. HARDIE: Since certain places in Scotland are mentioned, surely I am in order in bringing in other places which should be included in the Schedule, and suggesting a better application from the engineer's point of view?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In that case the hon. Gentleman would be attempting to amend an agreement which he cannot amend.

Mr. HARDIE: I am only trying to show that from things which now exist something could be learned by those who are handling this Schedule. Surely, the experience of the past should guide the present.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is reall bringing in something which would amount to an Amendment to the Schedule, but which, if it were put down as a specific Amendment, would clearly be out of order.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: I desire to supplement the observations of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) with

regard to labour which might be displaced by the changes which are likely to take place as a result of the expenditure of this money. We on this side of the House would be lacking in our duty if we did not make it clear that in our view any great industrial changes ought to take cognisance of the industrial workers who may lose their employment. The principle is not a new one, for, in the creation of the electricity supply grid in the North of England, engineers from the lesser concerns which were closed down as a result of the grid received sums in compensation for the loss of their employment, and it would be merely a rational state of affairs if all employés in similar circumstances were to be compensated and protected when their employment was taken from them owing to causes over which they had no control. I think that this is doubly so when the State is an interested party, as in the case of the advances—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting perilously near to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) which I ruled out of order.

Mr. ADAMS: I rather thought that I was. May I say finally that it is our business and duty to request the Chancellor of the Exchequer or those in charge of this matter to give attention to this particular aspect of the case, and see whether the skilled labour that will be displaced as a result of these changes should have some monetary protection?

7.28 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the course of the discussion on the Schedule two points have been raised, and, if I may, I will deal first with the one that was raised last, namely, that raised by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short). Everyone knows that the advance of applied science and new inventions which come along from time to time, and the effect of which is to reduce costs by saving labour, do result in displacement of labour, and that is one of the major problems of industry to-day. Everyone, I think, agrees with that, and everyone sympathises with the efforts that are made from time to time to mitigate the effects of a change which may ultimately be beneficial to employment, but the first effect of which is to displace a


number of individuals who may find it difficult to obtain other employment. Therefore, on the general point, I have nothing but sympathy for the view put forward by the hon. Member. At the same time he will see that, if anything is to be done by legislation in that respect, a specific agreement of this kind is not the place to do it. You cannot pick out a particular piece of work and apply to it conditions which do not apply to the industry in general. If people who were displaced, supposing that people were displaced, by anything that arose in consequence of this agreement, were treated better than others who were also displaced by works carried on by railways in the normal course of their practice, there would be complaints at once. Therefore I would say to the hon. Member that, while his general point is a good one, it does not seem to me to be possible to deal with it in connection with an agreement of this kind.
At the same time, I think I can give him some re-assurance as to the effect of the work contemplated in the agreement, and, in particular, with reference to the electrification of which he spoke. I remember that the same point was raised when we were dealing with the London Passenger Transport Agreement Bill. The railways, when questioned on the subject, said at that time that as a matter of fact they had not had to dismiss any men on account of electrification schemes, and that it was their practice to carry redundant men until they could find some other means of offering them employment. Therefore, I do not think there is any reason to apprehend in this particular case that men will be thrown out of work by reason of electrification, and I noticed only a few days ago that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport answered a question of the hon. Member for Doncaster in these words:
I understand that in the past railway companies have not had to discharge men as a result of electrification and I see no reason to suppose that the schemes of electrification now proposed … should have such a result."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1935; col. 930, Vol. 307.]
To pass to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), that is a matter affecting so-called additional labour to be employed

consequent upon this work. The words "additional labour" do not refer to labour additional to local labour. They refer to labour additional to the normal staffs; therefore, I cannot say to the hon. Lady that instructions will be given or appeals will be made to see that the first people to be employed by way of additional labour shall be people in the areas in which she is interested. With regard to the works being undertaken in the Wirral Peninsular, the first people will be the local people in the immediate neighbourhood of the work carried out or in areas contiguous to it. Of course, the area of Holyhead is contiguous, and that will be one of the first places from which additional labour will be had after the local supply has been drawn upon. I think a good many of the unemployed in the Holyhead district would be men with railway experience. They would be particularly in demand and particularly suitable for work of this kind and I believe they will be submitted by the Employment Exchanges. I have applied to the Ministry of Labour to know what their practice would be, and I am assured by them that it is their normal practice to go first to the scheduled depressed areas, and that the Employment Exchanges in the areas in which these works will be carried out will be specially reminded to do so. I do not mean special areas which are strictly defined by statutory definition. Depressed areas are areas which are scheduled by the Ministry of Labour for their own purposes. They tell me that, while they will necessarily have regard to the claims of suitable unemployed people in their own or in contiguous areas, particularly if they are areas of heavy unemployment, they will endeavour to give employment to suitable men from the depressed areas.
I have mentioned that in the Holyhead district a good many of the men have special skill for this work and, as far as skilled men are concerned, the hon. Lady may be certain that Holyhead will have ample attention given to it, and probably there will be a considerable demand for those men. With regard to unskilled men, men who have been attending instructional centres are those who will have first attention after the local supply has been tapped. There, again, I think Holyhead will be one of the areas from which the men are recruited.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Public Works Loan Commissioners for five years.)

7.37 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert "Christopher Addison, Esq., Sir Frederick Hayward."
This Clause contains a list of the names of the Commissioners who administer the Local Loans Fund. These Commissioners are appointed by this Bill once every five years, and I propose that these two names shall be added to the list. I need not say much about these two gentlemen, certainly not about Christopher Addison, who was for some considerable time an illustrious Member of the House. Sir Frederick Hayward is a gentleman of very considerable experience in administration, and I feel sure that both would strengthen the Board.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I feel a slight difficulty in refusing a request which has been so moderately expressed, but it is very difficult to see where you are to stop if you keep on adding names to this list. I am sure the hon. Member does not mean to suggest that we have at present in the Commissioners any lack of knowledge or competence for the duties that they have to perform. The main work of this body is to appraise the value of securities for loans. It is often said that we ought to take in wider angles of vision, and sometimes we have been told we ought to try to appoint Commissioners who are acquainted with local government, although there are at present gentlemen acquainted with local government on the Board. The Committee, however, should not overstress that because, when a local authority comes for a loan to the Board, it has previously had to run the gauntlet of the Ministry of Health, which has

to give its approval to the loan. Consequently the Commissioners can take it for granted that any question of local government has already been discussed by those who are experts. Let me remind the Committee, too, that on the last occasion on which this Board had to be constituted five years ago, the Treasury added the names of four gentlemen at the instance of hon. Members opposite, but only two find it convenient to attend the proceedings at all. I do not say anything in disparagement of the two names suggested in the Amendment. The hon. Member says that they would strengthen the Commission, but if we were to put everyone on the Board who would add to the wisdom of its deliberations we should have a very unwieldy body. I ask the Committee to support me in the view that the present Commissioners are discharging their functions well and that there is no necessity to add to their number. Every conceivable angle is represented which is relevant to the actual work that they have to do.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, if and when vacancies occur, the two names which have been put forward, representing a somewhat different point of view from those already on the board, will be most carefully and sympathetically considered?

Mr. MORRISON: Should vacancies occur any name that is suggested will receive the most careful consideration, but I do not want to pledge myself to any name. We do not know yet whether these two gentlemen would be willing to serve. Of course, any name put forward by hon. Members or suggested by the present commissioners would receive careful consideration.

7.43 p.m.

Major MILNER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider this point? I am informed that the whole of the present commissioners, with the exception of the last two, have been commissioners for five years. Is it not desirable that every five years, when there is a reappointment, additional members should be appointed, so as to get fresh blood? I do not think that the losses that have been incurred reflect very great credit on their operation. The hon. Gentleman said that the commissioners' duty was to appraise the value of securities offered to the board.


It is obvious from the list of securities set out here that the appraisements which have been made have not been very satisfactory. I imagine that the commissioners do not themselves value these securities, but act on the advice of duly authorised valuers. If that is so, possibly no great blame can be laid at their door, but I press the point that on bodies of this kind the opportunity should be taken from time to time, when they are reappointed, to bring in fresh blood. The gentlemen whose names are put forward in the Amendment are well known in public affairs. One, in particular, has great knowledge of the operations of local authorities, and the other, of course, has great experience and is well known in business circles. I understand that the number of commissioners who may be appointed is not limited. It does not seem to me that the hon. Gentleman has really advanced any good argument for not adding to the number. If it is not possible for him to accept the Amendment, I hope that he and the Government generally will bear in mind the obvious desirability of bringing in fresh blood to the boards and commissions which are appointed from time to time by this House.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Grants for public works.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BENSON: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary with regard to the sum of £20,000,000 that may be issued, how much cash is available in the fund, and whether it will be necessary to issue any more local loan stock should the whole of the £20,000,000 be found to be necessary.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: No, Sir, I do not think it will.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendments as to local loans fund.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.47 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: This Clause raises some rather considerable points. It proposes to take power to lend money at not less than 2¾ per cent. to local authorities and others who are entitled to borrow from the fund. Sooner or later, if lending continues at rates as low as that for any length of time and for any great amounts of money, the Local Loans Fund will become seriously unbalanced. I do not know how much loans money the fund has in hand, but let us assume that it continues to finance itself out of repayments without any necessary issue of fresh local loan stock. Every repayment that is made is a repayment of money which has hitherto been lent at a higher rate averaging 4½ per cent. over the whole loan. If, for instance, under the higher rates some money is lent at 6¾ per cent. and it is repaid and lent out again at 2¾ per cent., there will be a loss of 4 per cent. in the earning power of that money. That sort of thing cannot go on for ever. I am well aware that there is a reasonable surplus annually at the present moment, but it is possible that there will be heavy borrowings in the future at low rates of interest, and gradually the loans at a higher rate of interest will be paid off and ultimately the fund, which is paying 4½ per cent. on the money that has been borrowed will show a deficit. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any idea what the Treasury propose in such circumstances.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I would again remind the hon. Gentleman of the effect of this Sub-section. There were in previous Acts governing the activities of this body a provision that a certain minimum rate of interest should be charged. We wish to be armed with power so that should we be able to make certain conversions and reorganisations of this fund we may dispense with that minimum and lend to borrowers at a lower rate. The hon. Member has put a number of questions indicating that if we adopted that course it would impoverish the fund, but I can assure him that the whole matter has been carefully considered and that no action of that sort will be taken. The fund will lend at the lower rate which is here envisaged only if and when it can do so, and there is no question at all of


indulging in any such philanthropy as would impoverish the fund and impair its usefulness in future Parliaments.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid that the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary has given shows that he does not fully appreciate the point. The point is this—and I do not think that he can get away from it, because there is, to a certain extent, power in his hands. A certain amount of money is borrowed at the present time at very high rates of interest—my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) was putting this point—and gradually these loans are being repaid, a little every year. Because of the amortisation rates which apply to loans of this kind, every repayment of capital means that there is a loss of the interest at higher rates that that capital is earning. Every time that capital comes to be re-lent it has to be re-lent at a low rate. Every time that happens there is a reduction in the amount of money the Treasury is receiving. Something like £10,000,000 of capital was repaid last year, and that 10,000,000 was presumably re-lent this year in the neighbourhood of 3½ per cent. Therefore, as a result of that transaction—the Treasury cannot get away from it—they cannot lend money above the market value, and there is a loss to the fund of something in the neighbourhood of £150,000.
The point my hon. Friend was making, and which, I think, the Financial Secretary has brushed aside, is that if this process goes on and the present rates of interest prevail, the time must come sooner or later when there will be a deficit on the income side of the account. I am not saying that this can be avoided or that this Clause necessarily makes the position better or worse, but it is no good the Financial Secretary brushing the point aside as one that has been fully considered, one that the Treasury advisers know all about, and that we need not concern ourselves at all. It is a very serious point to which he ought to address himself in a serious manner.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have brushed it aside. I meant what I said to be taken in conjunction with what I

said when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill. The position is as follows: If the rates of interest fall to such a point that we could charge 2¾ per cent. to those who were borrowing from us we should not be doing that because we alone were affected. That would presuppose a surrounding set of financial circumstances in which we with our plans could get the money cheaper. I not only made it clear that we generally allowed a ¼ per cent. margin, but that we should not lend at 2¾ per cent. unless we could get the money cheaper.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: You might do something with the money you got back. It is not fresh money.

Mr. MORRISON: If the hon. Member considers the position as it stands now, it is true that, if we had had no power to convert outstanding loans at higher interest, the position against which he is warning me would arise. But he must bear in mind that in the Finance Act of this year power was taken by the Treasury to convert these outstanding loans to a lower rate. Assuming that that state of affairs to which he draws my attention had arisen and you had a monetary situation of general application which enabled us to lend the money at a lower rate of interest, presumably we would be able to get our money cheaper. Such conditions might result from such a conversion as he had envisaged. We have taken legislative power to deal with it, and I can only assure him that I am not in any way attempting to brush it aside.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: The Financial Secretary has entirely failed to answer my point. In order to simplify the matter let us avoid any question of conversion and assume that the Local Loans Commissioners are lending at 3 per cent. No conversion will help the hon. and learned Gentleman there for the simple reason that they have already had 3 per cent. They have issued stock, 420 million-odd pounds, at 3 per cent., but they have only received 300 million pounds for that stock, and if they continue to lend at 3 per cent., sooner or later they will find that they are receiving interest on 300 million pounds cash which they can lend, and are having to pay interest on 400 million pounds of stock which they borrowed. That is the position. At the moment we


are very close to that. We are to get 3¼ per cent. It is obvious that if the Commissioners have borrowed money at an average rate of approximately 4½ per cent. they cannot for ever continue to lend money at 3 per cent. without ultimately landing themselves with an annual deficit. No conversion would help them in that case, because they have already borrowed at 3 per cent. Clause 5 covers two entirely different points. In Subsection 2 there seems to be some reconstruction of the accounts. The annual balances accrued and likely to accrue are to be carried to the capital account of the fund. Can the Financial Secretary give any reason why there should be this reconstruction?

7.57 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the House when I attempted to explain this matter in some detail. The position is that in past years, when the fund was in its youth so to speak, Parliament provided that any surplus arising out of the income of the fund should be carried to a separate account from the surplus income account. Parliament did that with the object that it would hold any surplus it was using in suspense, and money in the account could then be devoted to any purpose that Parliament directed, either to being lent again or being reinvested, or to anything that Parliament thought fit. That practice was perfectly proper in the years before the War, when interest rates were low and when the stock was issued at approximately its par value. In the years that followed the War, when interest rates advanced sharply, stock was issued at a discount and the capital side of the account stood this loss. We have thus in the present condition this most misleading form of account and have, in fact, owing to the discount at which the stock was issued, a large deficiency, and we have at the same time a surplus income account. The income is not really surplus at all. The money that comes into it should really be appropriated to make good such losses as arise from these discounts.
This having gone on for a long time, and this particular form of surplus income account having been set up in circumstances which no longer prevail,

its sole effect is to present a misleading picture, and to give the idea that there is actually a surplus, which is the result only of the artificial account. We believe that the reorganisation of the accounts which is effected in Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of this Clause would enable the accounts to be kept in a manner which will give, prima facie, a more correct account of the true balance.

Mr. BENSON: Their if I understand correctly the balance which is held in the surplus income account will be put against the deficits amounting to £142,000,000 on page 5.

Mr. MORRISON: It would be carried to capital account. It would be applied exactly as the Clause says. Instead of being carried to a separate account it would be credited to the capital account of the fund.

Mr. BENSON: That why I asked the question. The accounts as issued show a capital account which has nothing whatever to do with the deficit the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The capital account deals with the amounts repaid by the local authorities and others and the loans issued by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. What the Bill intends to do is to carry not to capital account but to the Local Loans Fund. If that is so, why does it not say so? Why does not the Bill use the correct name for the accounts, or if the Bill is correct why are accounts issued in incorrect names? It is most confusing.

Mr. MORRISON: The words used are "capital account of the said fund"—that is the Local Loans Fund. That is where the money will be carried. The hon. Member complains of the obscurity of the account. I can assure him that if the accounts have suffered from that in the past he will see an improvement in the accounts which follow.

CLAUSE 6.—(Relief in respect of interest on loans.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.4 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It will be within the recollection of the Committee that when this Bill was passing through


the House on Second Reading I put certain questions to the Financial Secretary, and other Members of the House put questions relating to Clause 6. The Financial Secretary gave us rather inadequate replies. He said he could not go very fully into details at the moment and that we must wait and see what happened a little later. Naturally the points raised were rather complicated and we could not expect the Financial Secretary to give detailed answers on the spur of the moment, but now that we have come to the Committee stage I think it is only reasonable that the Financial Secretary should go a little further and should give the Committee more enlightenment than he did on that occasion. There are two points on this Clause on which I should like to have a clearer statement of what the Treasury proposes.
In the first place, while we welcome the idea that rates of interest on outstanding loans shall be brought down, we want to know whether that is a dream of the ultimate future or whether there is any prospect of it being realised at an early date. It may arise, as far as I understand it, on account of either the first Sub-section or the subsequent Subsections of Clause 5. If it arises owing to the subsequent Sub-sections of Clause 5 it would arise because there was sufficient money in the local loans account to enable them to deal a little generously with previous borrowers from the fund. If it arises under the first Sub-section of Clause 5 it would arise because the local loans Commissioners are able to give something to the 3 per cents. If the rate of interest falls, say, to 2½ per cent. the Commissioners can obviously refund the 3 per cent. local loan fund provided it is redeemable at any time, as I think it is.

Mr. MORRISON: Since 1912.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Therefore if the rate falls below 3 per cent. it may become worth the while of the Treasury to refund, and in that case they could give relief to the old borrowers as well as to the new. In the first place I want to know whether it is in contemplation to bring this Clause 6 into operatien either by the use of the later Sub-sections of Clause 5 or whether it must wait until the opportunity arises of bringing into effect the first Sub-section of Clause 5, and whether the Financial

Secretary thinks that either of these things is likely to operate in the early future. The second point I want to have elucidated is the use that is to be made of the advantages which may accrue from a reduction in the rate of interest.
It will be recognised, I think, that a very large part of the money lent out of the Local Loans Fund has been lent for the purpose of housing, and, although I certainly do not want to trespass on the time of the Committee by going into that matter in any detail, I should like to point out that there has been more than one method of financing housing through the Local Loans Fund under different Bills. In some cases the Exchequer bears the great bulk of the charge due to uneconomic rent—the whole, except a penny rate—in another case the Treasury contributes £6, and in another case contributes a maximum of £9 to the local authorities. What we want to know is whether, if a reduction can be made, the bulk of the advantage is likely to pass to the Treasury—whether in fact this Clause 6 is really going to be used to take the vast part of any benefit for the Treasury or whether the proposal is that the local authority and possibly the actual rent payer shall get a substantial part of the advantage that may accrue.
That is a point which I think the Financial Secretary swept rather airily aside on the last occasion by saying that obviously we had not come to the time when any reduction of the rate could be made, and that if and when that time arrived the question to which person it should apply would be considered, but that whether it should apply to the Exchequer or the local authority or someone else he was not prepared to say. I quite recognise that he cannot deal absolutely specifically with the detailed use of a hypothetical reduction which has not yet arrived, but I do think we are entitled to know what is at the back of the minds of the people at the Treasury who have framed this Measure so that we may know whether the refreshing fruits which Clauses 5 and 6 are offering are all to be put on the table of the Treasury or whether local authorities and other persons are to get a substantial share of the feed.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I fail to appreciate myself in the role of one who brushes things airily aside, and I should


like to say that I dealt with the matter briefly on Second Reading because I thought it was my duty to give an idea of the purpose of the Clause. If at any time it is found possible by converting existing stock to get such a state of solvency in the fund as will enable us to make some concession to existing loans, then we wish to be armed with powers to secure that the person who realises the benefit is the ultimate borrower and not the middle borrower. It is common knowledge that very often a loan may be made by the fund to a local authority which is in reality destined for an individual borrower. In cases under such Acts as the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act a man borrows from a local authority and the local authority borrows from the fund. The purpose of this Clause, and the sole purpose, is to secure that if the Commissioners are able to reduce the rate of interest on the loans granted to the local authority, the local authority must make a like reduction in the interest charged to the man who borrows. That is the purpose of the Clause.
The hon. Member asked two questions. He asked first, recognising as he does that this Clause has in view the happy day when such relief can be given, that I should name the day. Well, I am afraid that is simply not possible. If I knew the date I would tell the hon. Member, but the hon. Member will understand how many factors go to make the set of circumstances in which conversion is possible. There has to be a certain condition in the money market, certain rates have to prevail, there must be a certain state of solvency in the fund, and the date when that position will arise I cannot say. No man can predict the future with sufficient particularity. I cannot tell the hon. Member the day, but it is quite clear that in recent years, when interest rates have been low, a more fruitful set of general circumstances for conversion has arisen, and it is desired to equip the Treasury with the necessary powers so that if and when that concatenation of circumstances to which I have alluded does occur, swift advantage may be taken of it. Beyond that it is not possible for me to go. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will probably agree from his own experience that too confident a prophecy as to the date of an

operation of this sort may not be of assistance in bringing about the conditions which we hope to attain.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I take it that it is under the first Sub-section of Clause 5 that the question will arise. It does not arise under the changes that have been made in Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 5.

Mr. MORRISON: Oh, no. If the hon. Member reads Clause 6 he will see that it really follows not from anything in this Bill but from Section 31 of the Finance Act of 1935. It was by that Section of the Finance Act that we took the necessary powers and prepared the way for this conversion. Clause 6 really hinges on Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1935. I did not realise that that was what was troubling the hon. Member. The Section with which we have been dealing deals with an entirely different matter. The hon. Member put before me certain weighty considerations about various housing loans, where the Exchequer is in the position of a residuary legatee, and he voiced apprehension lest when the happy day arrives we shall single out for special treatment those loans where the Exchequer is itself involved, and leave the loans where other people are involved unredeemed and still paying the higher rate of interest. I can only tell him that that is not the intention. When I was asked this question on Second Reading I said that it was very difficult to visualise with accuracy the condition which might arise at a future date, but in answer to other questions I said that the way in which the relief would be applied would depend and must depend to a great extent upon its size. It would depend upon the sum of money you have at your disposal how you could best apply it in the public interest. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no such dark design as he apprehends in contemplation by the Treasury.
The Treasury are the holders of various stocks from time to time, and the practice has been to rank them on a par with other holders of the stock. I do not say that the Treasury will forego its share of the benefit if it happens to be involved in any transaction, but I can assure the hon. Member, if that is the substance of his question, that there will be no singling out for priority


Treasury stocks or, rather, loans in which the Treasury stands to gain by any such means that he has put forward. The answer is that what is at present intended will follow the practice in the past, that if the money saved should be of sufficient dimensions to enable the relief to extend over a wide area, then every one who is at present damnified by the existing high rate of interest would share in the relief. Certainly, no such thing as the hon. Member apprehends is intended.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: I do not know whether the Financial Secretary can give us the actual amount of money lent by the Commissioners under the 1919 Act. It would be very useful if he could.

Mr. MORRISON: I am sorry that I cannot give the figure right off, but with notice I could easily find out.

Mr. BENSON: I do not think much of this Clause. Under the Finance Act, Section 21, before any relief at all can be given the Treasury have to be satisfied that the Fund is £10,000,000 in credit. At present the Fund is £120,000,000 in debit. Therefore, I am afraid there will have to be a very big drop in interest before we are likely to see any advantage whatever from this Clause. I assume the Financial Secretary is conversant with the Treasury Minute which lays down the rules and regulations for the repayment of a loan before the stipulated day. Assume that a local authority has borrowed money under the Acquisition of Small Dwellings Act and has lent out under secondary mortgage the money borrowed from the Commissioners. Assume that they take advantage of some modification under this Clause of the Treasury Minute for repayment, would they be compelled thereby to make any modification in the rate of interest that they still charge to the mortgagee, the ultimate borrower?
I assume that the object of the Clause is to compel the local authority to pass over any advantage to the ultimate borrower when they receive a reduction in interest. That is correct. If any reduction in interest takes place, along with that reduction of interest there will have to be modification of the Treasury Minute relating to repayment. Assume that the local authority decides that it

can take advantage of the repayment but still decides to finance the loans that it has made to the ultimate borrower by borrowing money at a lower rate, after repaying at an earlier date than the original mortgage is supposed to be paid off, is there anything compelling them to pass on any advantage whatsoever to the ultimate borrower?

8.21 p.m.

Mr. MORRISON: I am not sure that I entirely follow the question put by the hon. Member, but I think I can answer him by directing his attention to what the Clause does. Take the case that he put to me, borrowing under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. The man goes to the local authority and executes a contract with the local authority, stipulating to pay a certain named sum. The local authority in its turn, when it has collected a number of such loans, goes to the board and executes a contract with them, in which the interest to be repaid to the fund is stipulated. What would happen, supposing the fund, out of the goodness of its heart and the richness of its disposition, were to reduce the interest would be this, unless this Clause were enacted, that the ultimate borrower, the small man who has a house, would be held by his contract to the rate of interest as expressed therein; but if the hon. Member looks at the Clause he will see that the effect of it is to create an alteration in every such contract in the land and to enact, by force of law, that if the contract said that 5 per cent. was the rate of interest, 2½ per cent., say, should be the rate. This Clause, if ever it is put into operation, will have the effect of stretching its invisible fingers over every contract of that kind in the Kingdom by rubbing out one set of words and putting in another. In that way, in the most effectual manner, it will effect the change which the Committee desire, namely, that the benefit should be given to the ultimate borrower.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. WOODS: The most significant word in the Clause is the word "if." The Financial Secretary, in his reply to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), repudiated the idea that he had replied in an airy way but, quite frankly, I think that he has


made this word "if" more airy than anything I have heard of. The Financial Secretary holds out the hope that something may happen. His reply, in which he said that he was waiting for a favourable concatenation of circumstances, is typical of the National Government, which is waiting for something to turn up. The Government do not realise the importance of this Bill. They make professions that they want to provide employment. The Financial Secretary may take it from me that up and down the country there are local authorities who, if they are to build, will have to borrow from this fund, and who are prepared if a favourable rate of interest were available to put in hand millions of pounds worth of public work, but they are held up merely because of the high rate of interest. There is a feeling that any local authority which has anything at all to do with this fund will be very foolish because of having to pay such a high rate of interest, a rate out of all proportion to the current rate. I feel that the Treasury, instead of waiting for a favourable set of circumstances, if and when and so forth, should face up to the problem and put the fund in such a position that they can make advances to public authorities, so that they can proceed with works which they are urgently desirous of putting in hand. At the moment their hands are paralysed by the tremendously high rate of interest—

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am afraid the hon. Member is now touching upon matters which do not apply to the Clause.

Mr. WOODS: I was referring to the attitude of the Financial Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter to which the hon. Member can refer on this Clause.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to amend the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Acts, 1911 and 1920, by making provision—

(1) with respect to the nature and period of service qualifying persons for the grant of pensions under section one of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Act, 1911;
(2) with espect to the meaning of the expression 'service in the permanent Civil Service of the State'; and
(3) for granting in certain circumstances to persons who, after serving as Governors within the meaning of the said Act, have served in the office of Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, pensions in respect of their service as such Governors and in respect of their employment (if any) in service in the permanent Civil Service of the State within the meaning of the said Acts as amended in pursuance of this Resolution;

and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums required to defray such expenditure as may be occasioned by the said amendments." (King's Recommendation Signified)—[Mr. J. H. Thomas.]

8.30 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I think there will be general agreement with the principle involved in the Financial Resolution which I am asking the Committee to accept. Briefly, it is to remove certain anomalies which now exist in Governors' pensions under existing Acts. There will be agreement that if any person at present employed in the Civil Service has proved by his great experience and knowledge that he is fitted to take the position of Governor in any of our Colonies it would be a profound mistake that any existing legislation should prevent the Secretary of State appointing him, or that he for any financial reasons should be prevented from accepting it. At the present time there are a number of distinguished civil servants who, if they were invited to take a responsible position of this kind or whom the Secretary of State felt he should appoint, would be able to say, "No, it would be unfair; I have served


a long period in the Civil Service and now to take the responsible position of Governor will mean that I should be financially worse off when the time arrives for me to take my pension." It will be agreed that an anomaly of that kind ought not to continue, and it is with the view of remedying that state of affairs, to make it possible that any Secretary of State shall not have to pass over an individual of that kind or for the individual to plead that he would be worse off financially, that the Bill has been introduced. There is no controversy, I believe, on either side of the Committee as to the merits and, therefore, having briefly explained the circumstances set out in the White Paper, I beg to commend the Financial Resolution to the Committee.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: As I understand this Money Resolution it is to authorise the payment of increased pensions from the Exchequer to certain Governors, not all, of a Dominion or Colony or mandated territory. At the present time civil servants are entitled to pensions. Under the law if they become Governors they have to serve for 10 years as a, Governor before they are entitled to the increased pension, and this Money Resolution is to provide that all civil servants who have become Governors of any part of the British Empire, Egypt and the Sudan shall be entitled after three years' service to the pension to which they are now entitled after ten years' service. It is a remarkable change. The estimate, I understand, is only something like £2,000 though that figure is not stated in the Money Resolution.
I would only make this comment. There is nothing which seems so easy to get through the House of Commons as the provision of pensions or emoluments for people who ordinarily receive large sums. It is considered to be a, matter that should hardly be discussed at all. I am not opposed to this Money Resolution. I am only calling attention to the circumstances in which we deal with these matters, and I would, by way of comparison, point out that nothing seems to meet with so much opposition here as the provision of pensions or the increase of pensions for those who are below the £100 a year mark. This proposal relates to men who have reached the age of 60. What is the position with

regard to the men who do the useful work, the hard work, the dangerous work of the nation, the men who have made the British Empire? The largest pension reached by them is 10s. a week at the age of 65. If it were possible to amend this Money Resolution so as to make it provide that every person on arriving at the age of 60 should receive a pension of £50 a year there would be a tremendous storm of opposition to it. That is something we ought to bear in mind when we are dealing so airily with a thing of this kind. I realise what the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out with regard to men of distinction in the Civil Service who may become suitable Governors. I have my opinion regarding some who are Governors and some who have been Governors.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: And some who would be Governors.

Mr. LUNN: Yes, and some who would be governors. But the point is that the best men should have the position. I do not know of any individual who has been prevented from becoming a governor by reason of the law as it previously existed and if there is any such case I agree that the law ought to be amended to provide for it. I do not think that many will come within the Resolution and I am inclined to think that the estimate of an extra £2,000 a year is generous. I am really concerned about the hundreds of thousands of men in the country who are not entitled to pensions and whose need for pensions we have not been able to make the House of Commons understand up to now. I draw attention to this aspect of the matter in the hope that it will be borne in mind and that when an opportunity arises of doing something for the workers of the country, while we cannot expect to get for them the amounts provided for the Governors of our Dominions and Colonies, we shall try to get them reasonable pensions on which they can live.

Mr. KELLY: I wish to know what is the urgency of this proposal and who is concerned at the moment in the alteration which requires this Resolution. I recollect how a Bill was rushed through in 1929 in order to secure pensions for certain people. It was done without sufficient explanation but with a great desire on the part of the Conservative Government of that time to see that somebody's position was made secure.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Was it not a Labour Government in 1929?

Mr. KELLY: No. There was a Conservative Government at one period in 1929. There was another Government with which the right hon. Gentleman was concerned in that year but I am not asking him just now to explain why he was connected with that particular Government at that particular time. As I say the Measure to which I refer was rushed through and it was not done during the period of the Labour Government because those of us who spoke against it were speaking from this side of the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain what is the urgency of this matter and whose pension is at stake. If this change is necessary for those who are appointed to governorships why not include the whole of the Civil Service in all its branches. As my hon. Friend has pointed out the Government show great anxiety about handing out pensions to people who receive fairly adequate salaries while they are in office. But when we suggest that adequate reasonable pensions should be paid to men and women throughout the country we are told that to do so would be ruinous to the country. I hope it will be noted outside that one of the first steps taken by this Government is that of providing pensions for people who have received adequate salaries in their official positions while they are refusing pensions to those who have not enough to live on even while they are at work.

Mr. E. SMITH: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that the main purpose of the Resolution was to remove certain anomalies? If so, is he prepared to apply the same principle to other pensions Acts?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow that question to be answered. It would be out of order.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES (IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES) ACT, 1932).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Order, 1935, dated the eighth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-

five, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the third day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. EDE: This is an Order which will be welcome. I notice that it was made on Armistice Day and has to do with the relationship between this country and the Irish Free State. One can therefore hope that we are getting towards a state of economic armistice between this country and the Irish Free State. It reduces the duty on dead turkeys by 2d. per lb., not that that interests the turkeys very much, but I should like to ask if any steps are being taken, especially at this season of the year, to make sure that that reduction in the duty will be passed on to the consumer. It is important that if the State is to lose revenue, any reduction in the duty should not pass into the pocket of the middle man, but should be passed on to the consumer. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will be in a position to tell us what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that that end shall be achieved.
We were given the other night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade a long list of schedules of prices of various chemical compounds which, we were told, had been agreed between various interests when a certain duty was to be imposed. Apparently, therefore, very complicated negotiations do go on to ascertain exactly how these duties shall affect the prices paid by the consumers. Have any such negotiations gone on in this case, and can the Minister assure us that if we buy an Irish turkey for Christmas to celebrate the economic armistice with the Irish Free State, we shall get the benefit in this respect? I notice that with one change of Dominions Secretary this duty has been halved, and I understand that another change in that office may be in contemplation. Are we to understand that if that in fact takes place, the duty will then be abolished and we shall get rid of the second half? If so, that might be an additional reason for hoping that we might have a Secretary of State for the Dominions who will be present in the House to answer himself for the sins of his Department.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: It is fitting that, as this is part of the mixed fare with which the House was to regale itself in the course of the day, we should conclude our proceedings with a duty of such a seasonable character as a duty on turkeys. I am obliged to the last speaker for the extremely agreeable and entertaining nature of his remarks, and I think my only duty is to try to give an answer to them and to explain briefly why the Order has been deemed necessary. This is the history of it: The Additional Import Duties Order No. 12 of 1935 was passed at the end of last April, and it raised the duty on foreign turkeys from 1d. to 3d. a pound. By the operation of the Import Duties Act, 1932, this increase automatically became attached to the duty already being paid on Irish turkeys under the Irish Free State Duties Act, and that had the effect of raising the total duty on these dead turkeys from 5d. to 7d. a pound. The House will remember that these Irish duties have a revenue purpose. Their sole object is to collect a certain amount of revenue, and the discrepancy between the duties on the Irish and the foreign turkeys was such that from a revenue point of view it was thought that the trade itself would be injured and that revenue, which it is always the desire of the Department which I represent to collect, would in some way become less easily gathered in. For that reason this reduction of duty is being made.
I would point out that the Order was made on the 8th November last, so as to be there in plenty of time for the Christmas market. I am informed that the traffic in dead turkeys reaches a climax at about this time of the year and that in fact it does not reach any considerable dimensions in other months. The hon. Member asked a number of questions. I do not know that he would like me to reply to all of them, and I am very anxious not to waste the time of the hon. Member or of the House, but as regards the consumer, I am afraid that, attached to this particular Order, there is nothing which has the effect which the hon. Member has in mind. We leave that at this time of the year to the operations of competition. If the hon. Member is buying a turkey on Christmas Eve and goes to Faringdon Market and takes his place among those busy per-

sons who are also buying their turkeys, and among the even more energetic persons who are selling them, he will have no difficulty in being assured that there is sufficient competition to keep the prices of turkeys within reasonable limits.

Mr. EDE: I go to the Caledonian Market.

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member is probably wise to go to a market with such a respectable name.

8.51 p.m.

Sir RONALD ROSS: I understand that the duty upon these turkeys has been part of those payments from the Irish Free State which go towards the money which they owe us by the engagements entered into by the Government of the Irish Free State, and I should like to ask what is the amount of money which we have received of the money which was owed to us during the last year, and whether there is any money owing. I think that is a matter of great importance, because there are many places which supply us with turkeys, but here we have the turkeys from one particular area which owes us money, and we are levying the money on these turkeys among other things. I think therefore that we are entitled to know what the financial position is. Again, is my hon. Friend so sure that the price of turkeys is going to be unusually high? I ask, because there are many areas in the United Kingdom where turkeys are bred, and the influx of agricultural produce from the Irish Free State naturally affects the producers of similar products in our own land. I think that where the price is going to be kept at about the usual level, the breeders of turkeys in the United Kingdom have a prior claim.
It was a long time before this extra duty was put on turkeys, and I do not know what has led to its being taken off, because certainly the market price of turkeys has not been very high recently. Last year, it was not so bad, but for previous years it has been quite low, and I think, without there being any spirit of hostility, we are entitled to know in particular whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to put on any other duty or duties to take the place of the money which we used to receive from this extra 2d. from turkeys. Clearly


there are many agricultural products coming in from the Irish Free State, most of which by no means carry duties up to the maximum to which it would be possible to raise them by Order in Council, and when we sacrifice, voluntarily, half the duty on turkeys, surely it would be possible to get it back somewhere else. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to enlighten us upon these points.

8.55 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: The last speech is, one might almost say, significant if not sinister. The reference to the United Kingdom makes one believe that there is something behind it. We understand there is a brisk trade between Northern Ireland and this country in turkeys. That reminds us of the curious journeys of Irish cattle from Southern Ireland to Northern Ireland. I should like to know if any turkeys have been hopping across the boundary from Southern Ireland to Northern Ireland in order to undergo the process of fattening and to give profits to Northern Ireland. Are the Government satisfied that the customs officers are discharging their duties efficiently in order to prevent a transfer of turkeys in this way, and, if so, will they be able to give certificates of birth showing whether Northern Irish turkeys were born in Southern Ireland and, after a slight process of becoming stouter and better fed, were transferred to another part of the United Kingdom?

Sir R. ROSS: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Irish turkeys have not the same capacity of hopping here, there and everywhere as the Liberals have.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. MUFF: I have just received a letter from Belfast in which I was requested to

get a north of Ireland turkey which would be purely Orange. I am told that turkeys in the north of Ireland are very scarce and are going to be very dear, and, knowing the state of my pocket, the writer of the letter rather questioned whether I should be able to afford one. Therefore, I am glad that the Financial Secretary has brought forward this proposal. We poor folk in Yorkshire want cheap turkeys, and I hope the House will agree to this Motion.

Resolved,
That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Order, 1935, dated the eighth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the third day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Abingdon, which was presented on the tenth day of December, 1935, be approved."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Nine o'Clock.